<?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 (3) TMI 436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325252</link>
    <description>Chewing tobacco packed in 6 gms. and 7 gms. pouches, then bundled into larger packs, was treated as outside section 4A valuation because the individual pouches were below the threshold for mandatory retail sale price declaration under the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. The larger pack was characterised as a wholesale package, not a multi-piece retail package, and prior decisions were relied on to support that small exempt pouches do not attract MRP-based valuation merely because they are aggregated. The stated effect was that assessment could not be made on retail sale price basis and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to refund relief failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325252</link>
      <description>Chewing tobacco packed in 6 gms. and 7 gms. pouches, then bundled into larger packs, was treated as outside section 4A valuation because the individual pouches were below the threshold for mandatory retail sale price declaration under the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. The larger pack was characterised as a wholesale package, not a multi-piece retail package, and prior decisions were relied on to support that small exempt pouches do not attract MRP-based valuation merely because they are aggregated. The stated effect was that assessment could not be made on retail sale price basis and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to refund relief failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>