<?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>2012 (6) TMI 561 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214249</link>
    <description>Packages intended for industrial or institutional consumers fall outside the Packaged Commodities Rules, while packages meant for retail sale remain subject to MRP-based assessment. The definition of manufacturer is wide enough to cover a person who places or causes a brand mark to be placed on a packaged commodity. Because the appellant claimed that the imported goods were sold only to industrial consumers and the record did not fully address that claim, it had to prove the facts supporting exemption, and a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence was required. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 18:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 561 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214249</link>
      <description>Packages intended for industrial or institutional consumers fall outside the Packaged Commodities Rules, while packages meant for retail sale remain subject to MRP-based assessment. The definition of manufacturer is wide enough to cover a person who places or causes a brand mark to be placed on a packaged commodity. Because the appellant claimed that the imported goods were sold only to industrial consumers and the record did not fully address that claim, it had to prove the facts supporting exemption, and a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence was required. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>