<?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>2017 (1) TMI 81 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337001</link>
    <description>Printed contract prices on cement bags were not accepted as the retail sale price for concessional duty where they excluded dealer commission, local taxes and unloading charges, so relief under Sl. No. 1A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE was unavailable on that basis. The adjudicating authority&#039;s fixation of a different retail sale price was held to be beyond the show cause notice and impermissible because the retail sale price must be printed on the package, not derived by comparison or computation. Consideration of concessional treatment under Sl. No. 1C also required proper examination of whether the buyers were industrial or institutional consumers, so the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 81 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337001</link>
      <description>Printed contract prices on cement bags were not accepted as the retail sale price for concessional duty where they excluded dealer commission, local taxes and unloading charges, so relief under Sl. No. 1A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE was unavailable on that basis. The adjudicating authority&#039;s fixation of a different retail sale price was held to be beyond the show cause notice and impermissible because the retail sale price must be printed on the package, not derived by comparison or computation. Consideration of concessional treatment under Sl. No. 1C also required proper examination of whether the buyers were industrial or institutional consumers, so the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>