<?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>2024 (2) TMI 498 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449347</link>
    <description>Section 4A valuation under the Central Excise Act does not apply where instant coffee is supplied for institutional consumption rather than retail sale, including clearances routed through C&amp;F agents, because the Packaged Commodities Rules exclude institutional buyers and packages of 10 gm or less. Small sachets cleared in bulk were treated as covered by the small-pack exemption when they were not meant for retail sale. The extended limitation period and penalty also could not be sustained because returns were regularly filed, the valuation practice was disclosed, and the issue was one of interpretation rather than suppression or intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:43:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 498 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449347</link>
      <description>Section 4A valuation under the Central Excise Act does not apply where instant coffee is supplied for institutional consumption rather than retail sale, including clearances routed through C&amp;F agents, because the Packaged Commodities Rules exclude institutional buyers and packages of 10 gm or less. Small sachets cleared in bulk were treated as covered by the small-pack exemption when they were not meant for retail sale. The extended limitation period and penalty also could not be sustained because returns were regularly filed, the valuation practice was disclosed, and the issue was one of interpretation rather than suppression or intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>