<?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>2001 (9) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97263</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order enhancing the value of Antimony Trioxide imported by M/s. Prashant Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the transaction value as per Customs Valuation Rules, criticized the Revenue for not considering fluctuating prices, and rejected the Bill of Entry provided by the Revenue. It concluded that the Revenue failed to prove undervaluation, thus allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:20:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97263</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order enhancing the value of Antimony Trioxide imported by M/s. Prashant Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the transaction value as per Customs Valuation Rules, criticized the Revenue for not considering fluctuating prices, and rejected the Bill of Entry provided by the Revenue. It concluded that the Revenue failed to prove undervaluation, thus allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>