https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50219 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s. Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, setting aside the demand for duty based on the extended period under Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner's argument that labeling plastic bottles constituted manufacturing was rejected, as labeling or re-labeling was not explicitly mentioned under Chapter 34 of the tariff during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that such activities were not intended to be considered as manufacturing at that time, leading to the decision that duty was not leviable and penalties were not imposable. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:45:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50219 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s. Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, setting aside the demand for duty based on the extended period under Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner's argument that labeling plastic bottles constituted manufacturing was rejected, as labeling or re-labeling was not explicitly mentioned under Chapter 34 of the tariff during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that such activities were not intended to be considered as manufacturing at that time, leading to the decision that duty was not leviable and penalties were not imposable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50219