<?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>2022 (12) TMI 902 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431785</link>
    <description>Re-bottling and labelling imported liquid bromine into smaller retail packs was examined against the deeming fiction in note 9 to chapter 28 and section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, but the order did not clearly identify which statutory condition was satisfied on the proved facts, so the finding of deemed manufacture could not stand and required fresh determination. Allegations of short-payment and clandestine clearance were also found unsustainable because the defence explanations and transactional context were not properly considered; the consequential confiscation and penalty findings therefore also had to be reconsidered. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2022 08:42:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 902 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431785</link>
      <description>Re-bottling and labelling imported liquid bromine into smaller retail packs was examined against the deeming fiction in note 9 to chapter 28 and section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, but the order did not clearly identify which statutory condition was satisfied on the proved facts, so the finding of deemed manufacture could not stand and required fresh determination. Allegations of short-payment and clandestine clearance were also found unsustainable because the defence explanations and transactional context were not properly considered; the consequential confiscation and penalty findings therefore also had to be reconsidered. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>