<?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 (12) TMI 920 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246698</link>
    <description>Separately packed, dissimilar excisable goods notified under Section 4A are to be valued item-wise on each commodity&#039;s own MRP at clearance, because the MRP-based valuation scheme applies to each excisable commodity individually. Rule 15 of the Packaged Commodities Rules was treated as relevant to genuine combination packs that are actually packaged together, not to a mere marketing arrangement where distinct goods are tied or sold together without being repacked into a single package. A Board circular was read as confined to multi-piece packages of the same kind, so the combined MRP of the sales scheme had no independent excise valuation significance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:43:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 920 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246698</link>
      <description>Separately packed, dissimilar excisable goods notified under Section 4A are to be valued item-wise on each commodity&#039;s own MRP at clearance, because the MRP-based valuation scheme applies to each excisable commodity individually. Rule 15 of the Packaged Commodities Rules was treated as relevant to genuine combination packs that are actually packaged together, not to a mere marketing arrangement where distinct goods are tied or sold together without being repacked into a single package. A Board circular was read as confined to multi-piece packages of the same kind, so the combined MRP of the sales scheme had no independent excise valuation significance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>