<?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 (11) TMI 374 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110098</link>
    <description>Goods statutorily required to carry an MRP declaration remain assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the basis of retail sale price, even if a particular clearance is made for free distribution and not for direct retail sale. The statutory scheme turns on the nature of the packaged goods and the MRP requirement, not on the channel of clearance; Rule 34 of the Packaged Commodities Rules did not exclude the goods, and the contrary circular was held inapplicable on its facts. A bona fide interpretative dispute and absence of mala fides meant penalty was not warranted, while duty was upheld subject to limited recomputation after admissible deductions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 374 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110098</link>
      <description>Goods statutorily required to carry an MRP declaration remain assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the basis of retail sale price, even if a particular clearance is made for free distribution and not for direct retail sale. The statutory scheme turns on the nature of the packaged goods and the MRP requirement, not on the channel of clearance; Rule 34 of the Packaged Commodities Rules did not exclude the goods, and the contrary circular was held inapplicable on its facts. A bona fide interpretative dispute and absence of mala fides meant penalty was not warranted, while duty was upheld subject to limited recomputation after admissible deductions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>