<?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>2004 (4) TMI 191 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52950</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that razors supplied for free distribution with another product should be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, not Section 4A. The Tribunal found that since the razors did not have a printed maximum retail price (MRP) and were marked as free with the shoe polish, they were not intended for retail sale. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:51:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 191 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52950</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that razors supplied for free distribution with another product should be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, not Section 4A. The Tribunal found that since the razors did not have a printed maximum retail price (MRP) and were marked as free with the shoe polish, they were not intended for retail sale. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>