<?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>2013 (4) TMI 617 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233353</link>
    <description>Small tea pouches packed together in a larger carry bag remained eligible for the exemption for branded tea put up in unit containers not exceeding 100 grams, because each pouch was itself a saleable retail pack bearing the required particulars and the outer bundle was only for convenience of transport, storage and distribution. The aggregation did not convert the outer packing into the relevant unit container or amount to conversion from bulk to retail pack. On limitation, the extended period was unavailable because duty payment on larger packs and disclosure of sub-100 gram clearances supported bona fide belief, and the record did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 617 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233353</link>
      <description>Small tea pouches packed together in a larger carry bag remained eligible for the exemption for branded tea put up in unit containers not exceeding 100 grams, because each pouch was itself a saleable retail pack bearing the required particulars and the outer bundle was only for convenience of transport, storage and distribution. The aggregation did not convert the outer packing into the relevant unit container or amount to conversion from bulk to retail pack. On limitation, the extended period was unavailable because duty payment on larger packs and disclosure of sub-100 gram clearances supported bona fide belief, and the record did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>