<?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>2002 (4) TMI 135 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51242</link>
    <description>Mere packing of duty-paid cosmetic and toiletry items into gift or combo packs does not amount to manufacture unless the process creates a new and distinct article or renders an otherwise unmarketable product marketable to the consumer. The Tribunal treated the individual items as remaining identifiable, marketable, and usable in their own right, so the chapter notes on deemed manufacture did not apply. It also noted that repeated declarations to the department negatived deliberate suppression, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. On that basis, the demand failed on merits and on limitation, and the accompanying Modvat and penalty consequences could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:04:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 135 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51242</link>
      <description>Mere packing of duty-paid cosmetic and toiletry items into gift or combo packs does not amount to manufacture unless the process creates a new and distinct article or renders an otherwise unmarketable product marketable to the consumer. The Tribunal treated the individual items as remaining identifiable, marketable, and usable in their own right, so the chapter notes on deemed manufacture did not apply. It also noted that repeated declarations to the department negatived deliberate suppression, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. On that basis, the demand failed on merits and on limitation, and the accompanying Modvat and penalty consequences could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>