<?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>2003 (3) TMI 508 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107858</link>
    <description>Duty was required to be recalculated on the depreciated value of the goods in accordance with the earlier remand directions, and the failure to allow depreciation on the capital goods meant the adjudicating authority had not complied with those directions. The impugned order was therefore not sustainable. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication, with recalculation of duty on depreciated value and an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:56:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 508 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107858</link>
      <description>Duty was required to be recalculated on the depreciated value of the goods in accordance with the earlier remand directions, and the failure to allow depreciation on the capital goods meant the adjudicating authority had not complied with those directions. The impugned order was therefore not sustainable. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication, with recalculation of duty on depreciated value and an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>