<?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>1999 (3) TMI 168 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90308</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that duty was not payable on excess quantity filled in retail containers for prickly heat powder, as there was no evidence of additional consideration or duty evasion. The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the order demanding duty and imposing a penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:45:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 168 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90308</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that duty was not payable on excess quantity filled in retail containers for prickly heat powder, as there was no evidence of additional consideration or duty evasion. The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the order demanding duty and imposing a penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>