<?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>2023 (7) TMI 324 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440051</link>
    <description>Pre-packaged imported goods intended for retail sale qualified for exemption from 4% Special Additional Duty because they were required to bear retail sale price under the Legal Metrology regime, carried MRP/RSP labels, and were sold locally in the same condition through distributors on payment of VAT/CST/ST. The importer was registered under the Legal Metrology law and had obtained permission for label affixation where required, while the goods did not fall within the exclusion for industrial or institutional consumers. Allegations of suppression were not supported, as the nature of imports was disclosed in the bills of entry and known to the department, making the dispute revenue neutral and weakening extended limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=718974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 324 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440051</link>
      <description>Pre-packaged imported goods intended for retail sale qualified for exemption from 4% Special Additional Duty because they were required to bear retail sale price under the Legal Metrology regime, carried MRP/RSP labels, and were sold locally in the same condition through distributors on payment of VAT/CST/ST. The importer was registered under the Legal Metrology law and had obtained permission for label affixation where required, while the goods did not fall within the exclusion for industrial or institutional consumers. Allegations of suppression were not supported, as the nature of imports was disclosed in the bills of entry and known to the department, making the dispute revenue neutral and weakening extended limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>