<?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>2024 (3) TMI 588 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450807</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai held that affixing fresh MRP stickers on watches does not constitute manufacture under excise law. The appellant merely changed retail price stickers without adding new brand details or product information. Following precedents, the Tribunal distinguished between labels (containing product descriptions) and MRP stickers (showing price only). Since watches were already marketable and the activity did not enhance marketability or transform the product, no manufacturing occurred. The demand against showrooms and CFAs was unsustainable as duty liability rests with manufacturers. Additionally, the show cause notice was time-barred as no willful suppression was established, the issue being purely interpretational with price lists available in appellant&#039;s accounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 588 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450807</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai held that affixing fresh MRP stickers on watches does not constitute manufacture under excise law. The appellant merely changed retail price stickers without adding new brand details or product information. Following precedents, the Tribunal distinguished between labels (containing product descriptions) and MRP stickers (showing price only). Since watches were already marketable and the activity did not enhance marketability or transform the product, no manufacturing occurred. The demand against showrooms and CFAs was unsustainable as duty liability rests with manufacturers. Additionally, the show cause notice was time-barred as no willful suppression was established, the issue being purely interpretational with price lists available in appellant&#039;s accounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>