<?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>1998 (9) TMI 665 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184359</link>
    <description>Cigarette exemption notifications were construed to require an honest declaration of the maximum retail price, and the duty slab could be worked out on the higher price the manufacturer actually visualised or expected if the printed price was deliberately understated. Deliberate pricing strategy, circulation of higher effective prices and reduced trade margins amounted to misdeclaration and suppression, justifying the extended limitation period under Section 11A. The demand against the manufacturer survived in principle, subject to fresh quantification on the corrected price basis. By contrast, the demand and penalties against the job workers were unsustainable, and the penalties imposed on the manufacturer and its officers/directors under the cited rules were also set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2019 13:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 665 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184359</link>
      <description>Cigarette exemption notifications were construed to require an honest declaration of the maximum retail price, and the duty slab could be worked out on the higher price the manufacturer actually visualised or expected if the printed price was deliberately understated. Deliberate pricing strategy, circulation of higher effective prices and reduced trade margins amounted to misdeclaration and suppression, justifying the extended limitation period under Section 11A. The demand against the manufacturer survived in principle, subject to fresh quantification on the corrected price basis. By contrast, the demand and penalties against the job workers were unsustainable, and the penalties imposed on the manufacturer and its officers/directors under the cited rules were also set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>