<?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>2020 (3) TMI 655 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393511</link>
    <description>Goods packed in small units and then placed in a larger retail box bearing MRP are required to carry MRP declaration on the retail package, attracting valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s MRP-based valuation was accepted, and the refunds availed under Notification No. 56/2002-CE were treated as valid because the duty paid in cash qualified for the corresponding refund mechanism. The demand for recovery of alleged excess refund was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 655 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393511</link>
      <description>Goods packed in small units and then placed in a larger retail box bearing MRP are required to carry MRP declaration on the retail package, attracting valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s MRP-based valuation was accepted, and the refunds availed under Notification No. 56/2002-CE were treated as valid because the duty paid in cash qualified for the corresponding refund mechanism. The demand for recovery of alleged excess refund was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>