<?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 (5) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52278</link>
    <description>Imported medicines were held not to be repacked from bulk into retail packs where the Revenue produced no evidence beyond bill of entry descriptions, and the assessee&#039;s version that the goods were imported in ampoules within trays and cartons remained unshaken. The Chapter 30 deeming provision was therefore not triggered on repacking. Affixing stickers showing the importer&#039;s name and MRP for statutory compliance was also held not to amount to labelling, relabelling or reprocessing when the original package was otherwise unchanged. On that basis, the post-import activity did not constitute manufacture under the tariff note and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:47:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52278</link>
      <description>Imported medicines were held not to be repacked from bulk into retail packs where the Revenue produced no evidence beyond bill of entry descriptions, and the assessee&#039;s version that the goods were imported in ampoules within trays and cartons remained unshaken. The Chapter 30 deeming provision was therefore not triggered on repacking. Affixing stickers showing the importer&#039;s name and MRP for statutory compliance was also held not to amount to labelling, relabelling or reprocessing when the original package was otherwise unchanged. On that basis, the post-import activity did not constitute manufacture under the tariff note and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>