<?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>1997 (4) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91555</link>
    <description>In a Central Excise dispute on whether the cost of further packing should form part of assessable value, CEGAT, Mumbai held that the packing-value principles from the Supreme Court required closer factual scrutiny of the packing arrangement and sales pattern. On the material then available, no prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit was made out. Total waiver was therefore declined, and the appellants were directed to make specified pre-deposits, with recovery of the balance duty demand stayed on compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:58:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91555</link>
      <description>In a Central Excise dispute on whether the cost of further packing should form part of assessable value, CEGAT, Mumbai held that the packing-value principles from the Supreme Court required closer factual scrutiny of the packing arrangement and sales pattern. On the material then available, no prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit was made out. Total waiver was therefore declined, and the appellants were directed to make specified pre-deposits, with recovery of the balance duty demand stayed on compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>