<?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>Supreme Court rules labelling at Taloja unit qualifies as manufacturing under Central Excise Tariff Act, dismissing appeal.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77041</link>
    <description>Process amounting to manufacture - activity of labelling - availing the cenvat credit of the duty paid by its Jammu unit - The Supreme Court examined whether the activity of labelling carried out by the respondent at its Taloja unit constituted manufacture. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which underwent an amendment substituting &#039;or&#039; for &#039;and&#039;. The appellant argued that labelling alone did not constitute manufacture, while the respondent contended otherwise. The Court interpreted Note 3 to allow for independent processes, including labelling alone, to constitute manufacture. They affirmed that the Taloja unit&#039;s activity fell within this definition and dismissed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 08:21:50 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 08:21:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court rules labelling at Taloja unit qualifies as manufacturing under Central Excise Tariff Act, dismissing appeal.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77041</link>
      <description>Process amounting to manufacture - activity of labelling - availing the cenvat credit of the duty paid by its Jammu unit - The Supreme Court examined whether the activity of labelling carried out by the respondent at its Taloja unit constituted manufacture. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which underwent an amendment substituting &#039;or&#039; for &#039;and&#039;. The appellant argued that labelling alone did not constitute manufacture, while the respondent contended otherwise. The Court interpreted Note 3 to allow for independent processes, including labelling alone, to constitute manufacture. They affirmed that the Taloja unit&#039;s activity fell within this definition and dismissed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 08:21:50 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>