<?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 (5) TMI 1127 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753074</link>
    <description>MRP-based valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act applies only where the packaged commodity satisfies the notification conditions on net content; the gross weight of the pouch, including a free lime tube, cannot be used to cross the prescribed threshold. On that basis, valuation on the Revenue&#039;s gross-weight approach was not sustainable. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the manufacturer was registered, had filed declarations and returns, and had disclosed the packing arrangement, with departmental visits recorded; the ingredients for suppression or similar culpable conduct were not established. The discussion concludes that the valuation demand and penalty did not survive on the stated facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2024 08:27:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1127 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753074</link>
      <description>MRP-based valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act applies only where the packaged commodity satisfies the notification conditions on net content; the gross weight of the pouch, including a free lime tube, cannot be used to cross the prescribed threshold. On that basis, valuation on the Revenue&#039;s gross-weight approach was not sustainable. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the manufacturer was registered, had filed declarations and returns, and had disclosed the packing arrangement, with departmental visits recorded; the ingredients for suppression or similar culpable conduct were not established. The discussion concludes that the valuation demand and penalty did not survive on the stated facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>