<?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 (9) TMI 661 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251635</link>
    <description>Tem-adhesive cleared in 5 kg to 25 kg containers was treated as prima facie covered by MRP-based valuation under Section 4A because the industrial or institutional consumer exclusion in Rule 2A was not established on the facts. The exclusion was read as applying only where such goods are bought directly from the manufacturer or packer by industrial or institutional consumers; sales through dealers and distributors did not satisfy that requirement. On limitation, audit detection, statutory returns and maintained records were held insufficient at this stage to show suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, so invocation of the extended period was not made out prima facie.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 661 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251635</link>
      <description>Tem-adhesive cleared in 5 kg to 25 kg containers was treated as prima facie covered by MRP-based valuation under Section 4A because the industrial or institutional consumer exclusion in Rule 2A was not established on the facts. The exclusion was read as applying only where such goods are bought directly from the manufacturer or packer by industrial or institutional consumers; sales through dealers and distributors did not satisfy that requirement. On limitation, audit detection, statutory returns and maintained records were held insufficient at this stage to show suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, so invocation of the extended period was not made out prima facie.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>