<?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>2000 (6) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93636</link>
    <description>Colour television sets required mandatory retail sale price declaration, so valuation fell under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act with duty computed on the retail sale price after abatement, not under specific-rate duty as other cases. The supply of free gifts did not alter the consideration for sale, because the buyer&#039;s payment remained the operative price. Goods cleared to depots without MRP printing at the factory stage were treated as having been deliberately handled to defer correct duty. On that basis, the extended period of demand and the penalty provisions were held invocable, and the demand and penalty were affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:47:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93636</link>
      <description>Colour television sets required mandatory retail sale price declaration, so valuation fell under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act with duty computed on the retail sale price after abatement, not under specific-rate duty as other cases. The supply of free gifts did not alter the consideration for sale, because the buyer&#039;s payment remained the operative price. Goods cleared to depots without MRP printing at the factory stage were treated as having been deliberately handled to defer correct duty. On that basis, the extended period of demand and the penalty provisions were held invocable, and the demand and penalty were affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>