<?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>2008 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124999</link>
    <description>Cement cleared in 50 kg packs to industrial and institutional consumers was considered eligible for the concessional duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. because the proviso applied where retail sale price declaration was not required and was not made. The Board&#039;s clarification treated such clearances as covered by Sl. Nos. 1B or 1C, on the basis that goods sold to industrial or institutional buyers were outside the retail price declaration requirement. The analysis rejected reliance on an opinion that focused only on the packaged nature of the goods without considering the end-use and buyer category. The notification benefit was therefore admissible and the duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:24:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124999</link>
      <description>Cement cleared in 50 kg packs to industrial and institutional consumers was considered eligible for the concessional duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. because the proviso applied where retail sale price declaration was not required and was not made. The Board&#039;s clarification treated such clearances as covered by Sl. Nos. 1B or 1C, on the basis that goods sold to industrial or institutional buyers were outside the retail price declaration requirement. The analysis rejected reliance on an opinion that focused only on the packaged nature of the goods without considering the end-use and buyer category. The notification benefit was therefore admissible and the duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>