<?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>1982 (2) TMI 179 - CEGAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72201</link>
    <description>Assessable value for imported goods under customs valuation must first be based on the price ordinarily charged at the time and place of importation under section 14(a); the valuation rules apply only if that market price is not ascertainable. A bare repetition of the show-cause notice, without enquiry or evaluation of evidence, is insufficient to reject the invoice price. The invoice price could not be discarded merely because the goods were used or because the manufacturer&#039;s list price was higher, particularly where the transaction involved a State Government undertaking and no extra remittance was shown. The matter therefore required redetermination under the applicable valuation rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2011 12:05:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (2) TMI 179 - CEGAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72201</link>
      <description>Assessable value for imported goods under customs valuation must first be based on the price ordinarily charged at the time and place of importation under section 14(a); the valuation rules apply only if that market price is not ascertainable. A bare repetition of the show-cause notice, without enquiry or evaluation of evidence, is insufficient to reject the invoice price. The invoice price could not be discarded merely because the goods were used or because the manufacturer&#039;s list price was higher, particularly where the transaction involved a State Government undertaking and no extra remittance was shown. The matter therefore required redetermination under the applicable valuation rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>