https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249538 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the duty was correctly paid based on the value determined under section 4A. The government undertaking did not qualify as an "Institutional Consumer" or an "Industrial Consumer," leading to the requirement to declare Maximum Retail Price under the SWM Rules. The order demanding differential duty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249538 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the duty was correctly paid based on the value determined under section 4A. The government undertaking did not qualify as an "Institutional Consumer" or an "Industrial Consumer," leading to the requirement to declare Maximum Retail Price under the SWM Rules. The order demanding differential duty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249538