<?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 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51289</link>
    <description>Affixing a sticker on imported soap packets showing the importer&#039;s name and MRP, when done only to comply with weights and measures requirements, did not amount to labelling or relabelling under Note 6 to Chapter 34. The deeming provision applies where there is replacement or pasting over an existing label, repacking from bulk to retail packs, or another treatment that renders the product marketable. Because the sticker merely added required information and did not cover or replace any existing label, the activity was not treated as manufacture. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the impugned order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51289</link>
      <description>Affixing a sticker on imported soap packets showing the importer&#039;s name and MRP, when done only to comply with weights and measures requirements, did not amount to labelling or relabelling under Note 6 to Chapter 34. The deeming provision applies where there is replacement or pasting over an existing label, repacking from bulk to retail packs, or another treatment that renders the product marketable. Because the sticker merely added required information and did not cover or replace any existing label, the activity was not treated as manufacture. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the impugned order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>