https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459352 CESTAT Mumbai held that strapping together tyres, tubes and flaps (TTF) at premises for despatch to dealers does not constitute manufacture attracting differential duty. The court found duty was already discharged on declared retail selling price for each component, with aggregate price being sum of individual products. The demand was unsustainable as there was no dispute on classification or valuation adopted by appellant. Court rejected revenue's argument that goods lacked marketability without hologram affixing, noting excise law concerns manufacture not branding. Industry practice of aggregation does not prohibit separate sales. Appeals allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:00:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459352 CESTAT Mumbai held that strapping together tyres, tubes and flaps (TTF) at premises for despatch to dealers does not constitute manufacture attracting differential duty. The court found duty was already discharged on declared retail selling price for each component, with aggregate price being sum of individual products. The demand was unsustainable as there was no dispute on classification or valuation adopted by appellant. Court rejected revenue's argument that goods lacked marketability without hologram affixing, noting excise law concerns manufacture not branding. Industry practice of aggregation does not prohibit separate sales. Appeals allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459352