<?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 (10) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217439</link>
    <description>Under Notification No. 38/2007-C.E., duty under the compounded levy scheme was linked to the retail sale price printed on pouches, and the Revenue could not enhance liability by imputing a notional retail sale price to export pouches that were not required to bear such marking. The scheme did not authorise adoption of a deemed retail sale price merely because the packing machine was also used for export goods. As the demand rested on that unsupported calculation, the duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217439</link>
      <description>Under Notification No. 38/2007-C.E., duty under the compounded levy scheme was linked to the retail sale price printed on pouches, and the Revenue could not enhance liability by imputing a notional retail sale price to export pouches that were not required to bear such marking. The scheme did not authorise adoption of a deemed retail sale price merely because the packing machine was also used for export goods. As the demand rested on that unsupported calculation, the duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>