<?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>1999 (11) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45304</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether large-scale duplication of blank audio cassettes into pre-recorded audio cassettes constitutes &quot;manufacture&quot; or merely a service for purposes of customs-related registration. The SC held that although &quot;manufacture&quot; is not expressly defined in the Customs Act, the activity results in transformation of blank cassettes into commercially distinct marketable goods with different identity and use, produced systematically in bulk for trade. It was therefore a manufacturing activity, not analogous to individualized recording services. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in treating it as a service industry, and the customs authority was not justified in rejecting registration of the contract on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 19:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45304</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether large-scale duplication of blank audio cassettes into pre-recorded audio cassettes constitutes &quot;manufacture&quot; or merely a service for purposes of customs-related registration. The SC held that although &quot;manufacture&quot; is not expressly defined in the Customs Act, the activity results in transformation of blank cassettes into commercially distinct marketable goods with different identity and use, produced systematically in bulk for trade. It was therefore a manufacturing activity, not analogous to individualized recording services. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in treating it as a service industry, and the customs authority was not justified in rejecting registration of the contract on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>