<?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 (2) TMI 59 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338359</link>
    <description>Food processor accessories cleared separately were said to attract MRP-based valuation only if the packaged commodity rules required declaration of retail sale price on those packages. The article notes that section 4A applies where goods are notified for MRP valuation and the metrology law mandates MRP disclosure; otherwise transaction value under section 4 may apply. It also records that notified commodities may be valued partly under section 4A and partly under section 4 depending on the statutory packaging requirement. As no clarification had been obtained from the Legal Metrology authorities on the accessories as cleared, the matter required factual verification and was remanded for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 59 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338359</link>
      <description>Food processor accessories cleared separately were said to attract MRP-based valuation only if the packaged commodity rules required declaration of retail sale price on those packages. The article notes that section 4A applies where goods are notified for MRP valuation and the metrology law mandates MRP disclosure; otherwise transaction value under section 4 may apply. It also records that notified commodities may be valued partly under section 4A and partly under section 4 depending on the statutory packaging requirement. As no clarification had been obtained from the Legal Metrology authorities on the accessories as cleared, the matter required factual verification and was remanded for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>