<?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>2004 (9) TMI 517 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114511</link>
    <description>Fruit pulp based drinks were discussed as a central excise valuation issue under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Because the goods were not shown to be notified under Section 4A, valuation had to be based on the invoice price rather than MRP-based abatement. The assessee stated that it charged the declared invoice price and had not claimed any deduction from that price, while the Revenue produced no material to disprove the declared value or any alleged abatement. The classification under sub-heading 2202.40 had already attained finality. On that basis, the invoice price was accepted as the assessable value and no differential duty was sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 13:05:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 517 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114511</link>
      <description>Fruit pulp based drinks were discussed as a central excise valuation issue under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Because the goods were not shown to be notified under Section 4A, valuation had to be based on the invoice price rather than MRP-based abatement. The assessee stated that it charged the declared invoice price and had not claimed any deduction from that price, while the Revenue produced no material to disprove the declared value or any alleged abatement. The classification under sub-heading 2202.40 had already attained finality. On that basis, the invoice price was accepted as the assessable value and no differential duty was sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>