<?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 (11) TMI 1548 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272390</link>
    <description>Cement cleared in bags to industrial and institutional consumers, where the goods were not intended for retail sale, was treated as falling within the concessional entry under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. The analysis relied on earlier Tribunal decisions and a departmental clarification stating that such clearances do not require MRP declaration and remain eligible for the notification. The notification benefit was accordingly applied to these non-retail clearances, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 06:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1548 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272390</link>
      <description>Cement cleared in bags to industrial and institutional consumers, where the goods were not intended for retail sale, was treated as falling within the concessional entry under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. The analysis relied on earlier Tribunal decisions and a departmental clarification stating that such clearances do not require MRP declaration and remain eligible for the notification. The notification benefit was accordingly applied to these non-retail clearances, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>