<?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 (11) TMI 17 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350138</link>
    <description>Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where goods are required to bear an MRP under the packaged commodity rules. Because Rule 2A excludes packages over 25 kg or 25 litres and goods meant for industrial or institutional consumers, the dispute turned on whether the switchgear fell within that regime. The article states that the goods were cleared through dealers in packaged form, sold by number rather than by weight, and repacked and labelled in the factory, which supported MRP-based assessment. The cited precedents were found inapposite on their facts. The goods were therefore correctly assessed under Section 4A on an MRP basis, and the challenge to the demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 17 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350138</link>
      <description>Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where goods are required to bear an MRP under the packaged commodity rules. Because Rule 2A excludes packages over 25 kg or 25 litres and goods meant for industrial or institutional consumers, the dispute turned on whether the switchgear fell within that regime. The article states that the goods were cleared through dealers in packaged form, sold by number rather than by weight, and repacked and labelled in the factory, which supported MRP-based assessment. The cited precedents were found inapposite on their facts. The goods were therefore correctly assessed under Section 4A on an MRP basis, and the challenge to the demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>