<?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 (7) TMI 488 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396819</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that as the goods were not sold in packaged form to ultimate buyers, there was no obligation to declare the retail sale price for valuation under Section 4A of the Act. The Tribunal referenced a CBEC Circular and a Supreme Court judgment to support this conclusion. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order confirming the demands on the appellants was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:12:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 488 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396819</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that as the goods were not sold in packaged form to ultimate buyers, there was no obligation to declare the retail sale price for valuation under Section 4A of the Act. The Tribunal referenced a CBEC Circular and a Supreme Court judgment to support this conclusion. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order confirming the demands on the appellants was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>