<?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 (7) TMI 335 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85691</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, dismissed the appeal concerning the valuation of imported machinery, specifically a second-hand Strausak Hobbing Machine. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the invoice value by the Assistant Collector, who had enhanced the valuation based on depreciation calculations. The appellants&#039; arguments for accepting the transaction value were rejected, emphasizing the need for adequate material to justify rejecting the invoice price. Additionally, the Tribunal declined to address the absence of a show cause notice, stating it should have been raised earlier in the appeal process. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision on valuation and procedural grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 15:50:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 335 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85691</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, dismissed the appeal concerning the valuation of imported machinery, specifically a second-hand Strausak Hobbing Machine. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the invoice value by the Assistant Collector, who had enhanced the valuation based on depreciation calculations. The appellants&#039; arguments for accepting the transaction value were rejected, emphasizing the need for adequate material to justify rejecting the invoice price. Additionally, the Tribunal declined to address the absence of a show cause notice, stating it should have been raised earlier in the appeal process. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision on valuation and procedural grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>