<?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 (10) TMI 1570 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266295</link>
    <description>Section 4A applies only where the packaged goods are required by the applicable legal metrology or weights and measures law to bear a retail sale price on the relevant package. For powdered hair dye sold in sachets and mono packs, the valuation issue depended on whether MRP was statutorily required on the sachet, the mono pack, or both; in the absence of a clarification from the competent authority, that issue was left for fresh determination. For depot clearances, valuation had to be worked out under section 4(1)(b) read with rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and the valuation adopted below was held incorrect and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1570 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266295</link>
      <description>Section 4A applies only where the packaged goods are required by the applicable legal metrology or weights and measures law to bear a retail sale price on the relevant package. For powdered hair dye sold in sachets and mono packs, the valuation issue depended on whether MRP was statutorily required on the sachet, the mono pack, or both; in the absence of a clarification from the competent authority, that issue was left for fresh determination. For depot clearances, valuation had to be worked out under section 4(1)(b) read with rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and the valuation adopted below was held incorrect and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>