<?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 (6) TMI 346 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108516</link>
    <description>After substitution of Section 4, excisable goods sold to an unrelated bulk buyer for sole consideration must be assessed on the transaction value actually paid or payable on each removal, and a higher price charged to other buyers cannot displace that statutory basis. The refusal of provisional assessment on the assumption that the normal price was already known was therefore not justified. Incidental waste and scrap arising from broken bottles, emptied tins, cartons, plastic carboys and similar discarded packing material were treated as non-manufactured remnants and not dutiable on the facts stated, so denial of provisional assessment for those items had no legal basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:08:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 346 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108516</link>
      <description>After substitution of Section 4, excisable goods sold to an unrelated bulk buyer for sole consideration must be assessed on the transaction value actually paid or payable on each removal, and a higher price charged to other buyers cannot displace that statutory basis. The refusal of provisional assessment on the assumption that the normal price was already known was therefore not justified. Incidental waste and scrap arising from broken bottles, emptied tins, cartons, plastic carboys and similar discarded packing material were treated as non-manufactured remnants and not dutiable on the facts stated, so denial of provisional assessment for those items had no legal basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>