<?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>2019 (6) TMI 553 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381476</link>
    <description>Ball bearings were held not to qualify for retail sale price valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as parts, components or assemblies of automobiles. The relevant notifications were confined to automobile parts, and the later amendment narrowed coverage to vehicles falling under Chapter 87; the goods were classifiable under Chapter 84 and there was no evidence that they were sold as automobile parts or to automobile manufacturers or service stations. Mere possible use in automobile parts was insufficient. On that basis, MRP-based valuation was found inapplicable, and the demand, interest and penalty were not sustainable; the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 553 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381476</link>
      <description>Ball bearings were held not to qualify for retail sale price valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as parts, components or assemblies of automobiles. The relevant notifications were confined to automobile parts, and the later amendment narrowed coverage to vehicles falling under Chapter 87; the goods were classifiable under Chapter 84 and there was no evidence that they were sold as automobile parts or to automobile manufacturers or service stations. Mere possible use in automobile parts was insufficient. On that basis, MRP-based valuation was found inapplicable, and the demand, interest and penalty were not sustainable; the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>