<?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>2016 (2) TMI 62 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271357</link>
    <description>50-litre lubricant oil packs sold through distributors to truck owners were treated as retail packs sold to ultimate consumers, so valuation fell under section 4A of the Central Excise Act rather than section 4. The Rule 34 exemption under the Packaged Commodities Rules did not apply because the goods were not shown to be specially packed for industrial use or servicing industry, and the Board circulars and metrology letter did not alter that result. The penalty was reduced because the dispute was interpretational, notices were within the normal period, and no suppression or misstatement was found; equal penalty was therefore unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 62 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271357</link>
      <description>50-litre lubricant oil packs sold through distributors to truck owners were treated as retail packs sold to ultimate consumers, so valuation fell under section 4A of the Central Excise Act rather than section 4. The Rule 34 exemption under the Packaged Commodities Rules did not apply because the goods were not shown to be specially packed for industrial use or servicing industry, and the Board circulars and metrology letter did not alter that result. The penalty was reduced because the dispute was interpretational, notices were within the normal period, and no suppression or misstatement was found; equal penalty was therefore unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>