<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1420 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199259</link>
    <description>Cement cleared in packaged form with maximum retail price declared was treated as goods required to bear retail sale price for valuation under Section 4A, even when supplied to an institutional buyer. The legal metrology clarification supporting MRP declaration on such packages was considered decisive, and the nature of the buyer was not treated as determinative. On that basis, the duty entry linked to packaged goods bearing MRP under Notification No. 4/2006-CE was applied rather than the lower alternative entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:19:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1420 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199259</link>
      <description>Cement cleared in packaged form with maximum retail price declared was treated as goods required to bear retail sale price for valuation under Section 4A, even when supplied to an institutional buyer. The legal metrology clarification supporting MRP declaration on such packages was considered decisive, and the nature of the buyer was not treated as determinative. On that basis, the duty entry linked to packaged goods bearing MRP under Notification No. 4/2006-CE was applied rather than the lower alternative entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>