<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1049 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263132</link>
    <description>SC considered whether auto bulbs cleared to original equipment manufacturers fell under tariff entry 8539.10 or 8539.90. It held that bulbs packaged and sold at a retail sale price below Rs. 20 per bulb were classifiable under entry 8539.10, with section 4A and Note 7A focusing on the retail sale price relevant to the goods rather than a contrary classification under entry 8539.90. It also held that omission of the retail sale price on packages did not defeat entry 8539.10 where Rule 34 of the Packaged Commodities Rules exempted packages specially packed for exclusive industrial use or servicing industry. The classification and penalty demand were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1049 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263132</link>
      <description>SC considered whether auto bulbs cleared to original equipment manufacturers fell under tariff entry 8539.10 or 8539.90. It held that bulbs packaged and sold at a retail sale price below Rs. 20 per bulb were classifiable under entry 8539.10, with section 4A and Note 7A focusing on the retail sale price relevant to the goods rather than a contrary classification under entry 8539.90. It also held that omission of the retail sale price on packages did not defeat entry 8539.10 where Rule 34 of the Packaged Commodities Rules exempted packages specially packed for exclusive industrial use or servicing industry. The classification and penalty demand were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>