<?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>2009 (3) TMI 855 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126598</link>
    <description>Goods cleared as a combination pack of dissimilar commodities were held assessable under Section 4A on the declared combined retail sale price, because the packaged commodity rules treat such a pack as a single combination package and the Board&#039;s circular supported MRP-based valuation for multi-piece or combined packs. The Tribunal found that where one item is supplied free or not separately priced, the declared package MRP may be adopted unless revenue establishes a sustainable basis to reject it. Isolated dealer statements and retail deviations were insufficient to displace the declared valuation absent affirmative evidence of undervaluation or additional consideration. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2017 09:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 855 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126598</link>
      <description>Goods cleared as a combination pack of dissimilar commodities were held assessable under Section 4A on the declared combined retail sale price, because the packaged commodity rules treat such a pack as a single combination package and the Board&#039;s circular supported MRP-based valuation for multi-piece or combined packs. The Tribunal found that where one item is supplied free or not separately priced, the declared package MRP may be adopted unless revenue establishes a sustainable basis to reject it. Isolated dealer statements and retail deviations were insufficient to displace the declared valuation absent affirmative evidence of undervaluation or additional consideration. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>