<?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 (7) TMI 678 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755458</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that goods sold to the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) by the appellant, a soap manufacturer, were not subject to Maximum Retail Price (MRP) affixation under the Standards of Weights &amp; Measures Act, 1976. It determined that CSD, as an institutional consumer, was exempt from retail sale requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the valuation of goods should be conducted under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, rather than Section 4A. The Tribunal accepted the appellant&#039;s reliance on Circular No.625/16/2002-CX, affirming its binding nature, thus favoring the appellant&#039;s position against the demand for differential duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:18:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 678 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755458</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that goods sold to the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) by the appellant, a soap manufacturer, were not subject to Maximum Retail Price (MRP) affixation under the Standards of Weights &amp; Measures Act, 1976. It determined that CSD, as an institutional consumer, was exempt from retail sale requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the valuation of goods should be conducted under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, rather than Section 4A. The Tribunal accepted the appellant&#039;s reliance on Circular No.625/16/2002-CX, affirming its binding nature, thus favoring the appellant&#039;s position against the demand for differential duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>