<?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>2003 (7) TMI 116 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51937</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the appellant&#039;s repacking and shrink-wrapping of imported compact discs did not amount to manufacturing as no new article emerged, maintaining the discs&#039; original form. The extended limitation period was deemed inapplicable as the activities were not transformative. The packing and inlay card insertion were considered ancillary and incidental, not integral to the manufacturing process, exempting the appellant from duty and penalty. Incidental activities like packing and labeling were clarified not to constitute manufacturing unless integral to the production process, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:52:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 116 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51937</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the appellant&#039;s repacking and shrink-wrapping of imported compact discs did not amount to manufacturing as no new article emerged, maintaining the discs&#039; original form. The extended limitation period was deemed inapplicable as the activities were not transformative. The packing and inlay card insertion were considered ancillary and incidental, not integral to the manufacturing process, exempting the appellant from duty and penalty. Incidental activities like packing and labeling were clarified not to constitute manufacturing unless integral to the production process, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>