<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1014 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354278</link>
    <description>Packaged drinking water supplied in the same area may attract different valuation treatment depending on whether it is sold as retail packs or supplied to institutional buyers: retail packs are ordinarily assessed on declared MRP under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while institutional clearances may fall under section 4 on transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not specifically allege section 4 valuation for institutional supplies and that the record did not clearly establish whether two distinct classes of consumers existed or whether duty had been consistently discharged on all clearances. As these factual aspects required verification, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, leaving all issues open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1014 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354278</link>
      <description>Packaged drinking water supplied in the same area may attract different valuation treatment depending on whether it is sold as retail packs or supplied to institutional buyers: retail packs are ordinarily assessed on declared MRP under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while institutional clearances may fall under section 4 on transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not specifically allege section 4 valuation for institutional supplies and that the record did not clearly establish whether two distinct classes of consumers existed or whether duty had been consistently discharged on all clearances. As these factual aspects required verification, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, leaving all issues open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>