<?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 (9) TMI 130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236697</link>
    <description>Section 4A of the Central Excise Act applies to notified goods sold in packages that are required by law to bear retail sale price. Chocolates cleared as individually packed retail packs bearing MRP remained covered by the MRP-based valuation regime even when placed in cardboard outers for repacking into assortment packs. The claim that the outer carton was a wholesale package under the Package Commodities Rules did not succeed because the movement was not a bulk sale to an intermediary for further distribution in smaller quantities. The exemption from MRP marking under Rules 29 and 34 was not established, so duty was payable on MRP-based value and the demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236697</link>
      <description>Section 4A of the Central Excise Act applies to notified goods sold in packages that are required by law to bear retail sale price. Chocolates cleared as individually packed retail packs bearing MRP remained covered by the MRP-based valuation regime even when placed in cardboard outers for repacking into assortment packs. The claim that the outer carton was a wholesale package under the Package Commodities Rules did not succeed because the movement was not a bulk sale to an intermediary for further distribution in smaller quantities. The exemption from MRP marking under Rules 29 and 34 was not established, so duty was payable on MRP-based value and the demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>