<?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>2003 (10) TMI 82 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52082</link>
    <description>For a multi-piece package, valuation under Section 4A turned on whether the retail sale price declared on the outer pack or the higher price printed on individual wrappers applied. A later circular clarified that, where the individual units were not intended for separate sale and could not be detached and sold separately, the pack price would be the relevant MRP; the earlier circular had favoured the highest declared price where multiple retail sale prices appeared. The Tribunal found prima facie support for applying the later clarificatory circular to the disputed period and held that its effect had not been examined below, so the matter required fresh decision on remand without insisting on pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:28:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 82 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52082</link>
      <description>For a multi-piece package, valuation under Section 4A turned on whether the retail sale price declared on the outer pack or the higher price printed on individual wrappers applied. A later circular clarified that, where the individual units were not intended for separate sale and could not be detached and sold separately, the pack price would be the relevant MRP; the earlier circular had favoured the highest declared price where multiple retail sale prices appeared. The Tribunal found prima facie support for applying the later clarificatory circular to the disputed period and held that its effect had not been examined below, so the matter required fresh decision on remand without insisting on pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>