<?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>2002 (1) TMI 579 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101148</link>
    <description>The appeal addressed the under-valuation of Indian origin goods imported into India, with the appellants failing to provide evidence supporting their claim. The Department relied on the manufacturer&#039;s price for valuation, leading to duty payment, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The redemption fine and penalty were reduced. The challenge to the price list was remanded for reconsideration due to discrepancies and lack of clarity, with instructions to reexamine the issue and provide a copy of the price list. The benefit under Notification No. 94/96 was not considered initially, prompting a remand for further examination to address all relevant claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:35:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 579 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101148</link>
      <description>The appeal addressed the under-valuation of Indian origin goods imported into India, with the appellants failing to provide evidence supporting their claim. The Department relied on the manufacturer&#039;s price for valuation, leading to duty payment, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The redemption fine and penalty were reduced. The challenge to the price list was remanded for reconsideration due to discrepancies and lack of clarity, with instructions to reexamine the issue and provide a copy of the price list. The benefit under Notification No. 94/96 was not considered initially, prompting a remand for further examination to address all relevant claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>