<?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 (12) TMI 1026 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254683</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that toothpaste supplied as free samples, not intended for retail sale, should be valued under Section 4 instead of Section 4A for excise duty assessment. The appellant&#039;s argument that the Retail Sale Price basis should not apply to goods not meant for sale was accepted, based on the Cost Construction method and previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s orders, providing relief in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 06:52:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1026 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254683</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that toothpaste supplied as free samples, not intended for retail sale, should be valued under Section 4 instead of Section 4A for excise duty assessment. The appellant&#039;s argument that the Retail Sale Price basis should not apply to goods not meant for sale was accepted, based on the Cost Construction method and previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s orders, providing relief in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>