<?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 (7) TMI 1067 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330469</link>
    <description>Cement bag packing was treated as permissible within the recognised 1% tolerance under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and the Board circular applied the same variation for central excise duty. Because no extra consideration was charged for the excess quantity and a binding circular could not be disregarded by the Revenue, duty on the alleged excess over 50 kg bags was not sustainable. Earlier decisions supporting around 1% variation in cement bags were also relied on, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:18:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1067 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330469</link>
      <description>Cement bag packing was treated as permissible within the recognised 1% tolerance under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and the Board circular applied the same variation for central excise duty. Because no extra consideration was charged for the excess quantity and a binding circular could not be disregarded by the Revenue, duty on the alleged excess over 50 kg bags was not sustainable. Earlier decisions supporting around 1% variation in cement bags were also relied on, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>