<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (12) TMI 1373 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291274</link>
    <description>Printing paste prepared in the factory from formulated, standardised or prepared dyes by simple mixing with other materials was held not to amount to manufacture under the applicable tariff understanding. The section 37B classification circular clarified that such paste is not classifiable under sub-heading 3204.29, and the Revenue had the burden to show that the dyes were unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared. The assessee&#039;s invoices and certificates supported standardisation, short shelf life and non-marketability, while no contrary evidence was produced. The process was therefore not excisable, and duty liability under the disputed classification could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:53:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1373 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291274</link>
      <description>Printing paste prepared in the factory from formulated, standardised or prepared dyes by simple mixing with other materials was held not to amount to manufacture under the applicable tariff understanding. The section 37B classification circular clarified that such paste is not classifiable under sub-heading 3204.29, and the Revenue had the burden to show that the dyes were unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared. The assessee&#039;s invoices and certificates supported standardisation, short shelf life and non-marketability, while no contrary evidence was produced. The process was therefore not excisable, and duty liability under the disputed classification could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>