<?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 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51596</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that painting consignor and consignee names on drums containing textile chemicals does not constitute &quot;labelling&quot; under tariff notes defining manufacture. The Tribunal distinguished between mere identification markings and true labelling, which must provide information about product nature, contents, or characteristics. Applying strict interpretation to deeming provisions, it concluded the appellant&#039;s activity did not amount to manufacture. Additionally, the show cause notice failed to specify repacking allegations relied upon in the impugned order, rendering it procedurally defective. The appeal was allowed, and duty demands were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2025 07:52:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51596</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that painting consignor and consignee names on drums containing textile chemicals does not constitute &quot;labelling&quot; under tariff notes defining manufacture. The Tribunal distinguished between mere identification markings and true labelling, which must provide information about product nature, contents, or characteristics. Applying strict interpretation to deeming provisions, it concluded the appellant&#039;s activity did not amount to manufacture. Additionally, the show cause notice failed to specify repacking allegations relied upon in the impugned order, rendering it procedurally defective. The appeal was allowed, and duty demands were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>