<?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 (10) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333213</link>
    <description>Marginal excess filling of cement bags beyond the declared 50 kg weight did not justify central excise duty demand where the excess remained within the recognised permissible variation. The assessee filled about 50.200 kg per bag but charged only for 50 kg, and the record showed the extra quantity was intended to ensure customers received not less than the declared weight and to offset transit and handling loss. A CBEC circular accepted a 1% variation for cement bags, and the packaged commodities rules also contemplated such variation. On that basis, the excess was treated as permissible and no duty evasion was inferred; the demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333213</link>
      <description>Marginal excess filling of cement bags beyond the declared 50 kg weight did not justify central excise duty demand where the excess remained within the recognised permissible variation. The assessee filled about 50.200 kg per bag but charged only for 50 kg, and the record showed the extra quantity was intended to ensure customers received not less than the declared weight and to offset transit and handling loss. A CBEC circular accepted a 1% variation for cement bags, and the packaged commodities rules also contemplated such variation. On that basis, the excess was treated as permissible and no duty evasion was inferred; the demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>