https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54613 Processing in a free trade zone through filling, testing, labelling, cellophaning, repacking and segregation was treated as manufacture because it produced a commercially distinct, marketable product rather than mere routine packing, so exemption under Notification No. 133/94-Cus. could not be denied on the premise that the imports were finished goods. Confiscation and penalty for routing consignments through Kandla Port were also unsustainable because the adjudication went beyond the show cause notice, ignored the notification appointing Kandla as a customs port, and lacked support for the penal consequences invoked. The result was that the exemption claim, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were all set aside. en-us Mon, 30 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 May 2024 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54613 Processing in a free trade zone through filling, testing, labelling, cellophaning, repacking and segregation was treated as manufacture because it produced a commercially distinct, marketable product rather than mere routine packing, so exemption under Notification No. 133/94-Cus. could not be denied on the premise that the imports were finished goods. Confiscation and penalty for routing consignments through Kandla Port were also unsustainable because the adjudication went beyond the show cause notice, ignored the notification appointing Kandla as a customs port, and lacked support for the penal consequences invoked. The result was that the exemption claim, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were all set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54613