<?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>2014 (8) TMI 658 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250708</link>
    <description>Ceramic tiles cleared to builders, contractors and other bulk buyers in retail packs bearing MRP were treated as assessable under section 4, not section 4A, because the statutory conditions for MRP-based valuation and retail sale price declaration were not satisfied for sales to identifiable bulk consumers on contracted prices. The applicable packaged commodities rules and retail-sale concept supported that approach, and a Board circular could not displace the statutory scheme. The record also supported invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty under section 11AC because the true nature of the clearances and valuation basis was not fully disclosed, so the demand, limitation and penalty survived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 658 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250708</link>
      <description>Ceramic tiles cleared to builders, contractors and other bulk buyers in retail packs bearing MRP were treated as assessable under section 4, not section 4A, because the statutory conditions for MRP-based valuation and retail sale price declaration were not satisfied for sales to identifiable bulk consumers on contracted prices. The applicable packaged commodities rules and retail-sale concept supported that approach, and a Board circular could not displace the statutory scheme. The record also supported invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty under section 11AC because the true nature of the clearances and valuation basis was not fully disclosed, so the demand, limitation and penalty survived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>