<?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>1996 (9) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85584</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed most findings in the impugned order, except for the freight charges issue. The case was remanded to the Commissioner to determine the assessable value afresh, considering the appellant&#039;s freight charges and insurance charges. The Commissioner was directed to quantify the duty leviable and differential duty, granting the appellant a personal hearing before issuing the fresh order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:38:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85584</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed most findings in the impugned order, except for the freight charges issue. The case was remanded to the Commissioner to determine the assessable value afresh, considering the appellant&#039;s freight charges and insurance charges. The Commissioner was directed to quantify the duty leviable and differential duty, granting the appellant a personal hearing before issuing the fresh order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>