<?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>2006 (10) TMI 312 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120193</link>
    <description>Where excisable goods bear more than one declared retail sale price, the Explanation to Section 4A deems the maximum declared price to be the retail sale price for valuation. Applying that rule, the higher MRP must be adopted even if the goods were actually sold at a lower price. The assessee&#039;s challenge to valuation on the basis of the lower selling price was rejected, and the higher of the two declared MRPs was treated as the correct retail sale price under Section 4A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:53:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 312 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120193</link>
      <description>Where excisable goods bear more than one declared retail sale price, the Explanation to Section 4A deems the maximum declared price to be the retail sale price for valuation. Applying that rule, the higher MRP must be adopted even if the goods were actually sold at a lower price. The assessee&#039;s challenge to valuation on the basis of the lower selling price was rejected, and the higher of the two declared MRPs was treated as the correct retail sale price under Section 4A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>