<?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 970 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337890</link>
    <description>Section 4A MRP-based valuation applies only where the package is one that the packaged-commodity rules require to bear a retail sale price. Secondary polythene packs containing multiple chewing tobacco pouches of 6 gms. and 7 gms. were treated as wholesale packages because they lacked MRP declaration on the outer pack, were not shown to be intended for retail sale as a single unit, and the declarations indicated sale by weight of each pouch rather than by number. Rule 34 exemption for small packages also supported exclusion from the retail-price regime. On that basis, the outer packs were not multi-piece retail packages and valuation under transaction value, not section 4A, was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 970 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337890</link>
      <description>Section 4A MRP-based valuation applies only where the package is one that the packaged-commodity rules require to bear a retail sale price. Secondary polythene packs containing multiple chewing tobacco pouches of 6 gms. and 7 gms. were treated as wholesale packages because they lacked MRP declaration on the outer pack, were not shown to be intended for retail sale as a single unit, and the declarations indicated sale by weight of each pouch rather than by number. Rule 34 exemption for small packages also supported exclusion from the retail-price regime. On that basis, the outer packs were not multi-piece retail packages and valuation under transaction value, not section 4A, was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>