<?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>2010 (4) TMI 518 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78505</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of imported perfumes in spray-packs under CTH 9616.10, distinguishing them from perfumes without a spray mechanism classified under CTH 3303.00. However, regarding the valuation issue, the Tribunal found deficiencies in the reasoning for a 160%/100% value adjustment and directed a fresh assessment with proper justification and evidence. The lower appellate authority was instructed to reconsider the valuation, allowing the appellant to present relevant documents. The appeal outcome resulted in the classification being upheld while the valuation matter was remitted for a detailed reassessment by the lower appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:29:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 518 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78505</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of imported perfumes in spray-packs under CTH 9616.10, distinguishing them from perfumes without a spray mechanism classified under CTH 3303.00. However, regarding the valuation issue, the Tribunal found deficiencies in the reasoning for a 160%/100% value adjustment and directed a fresh assessment with proper justification and evidence. The lower appellate authority was instructed to reconsider the valuation, allowing the appellant to present relevant documents. The appeal outcome resulted in the classification being upheld while the valuation matter was remitted for a detailed reassessment by the lower appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>