<?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>2004 (10) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114571</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value of imported windmill blades could not be rejected merely on suspicion or on an unsupported Chartered Engineer&#039;s report. The Revenue failed to prove that the invoice price was influenced by any extra-commercial consideration, and the statutory exceptions for discarding transaction value were not shown to apply. The blades were old, unused and sold on a distress-sale basis at the invoiced price, which supported acceptance of the declared value. The freight omission was later corrected during investigation, differential duty was paid before the show-cause notice, and no mala fide was established. The demand, confiscation and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 10:21:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114571</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value of imported windmill blades could not be rejected merely on suspicion or on an unsupported Chartered Engineer&#039;s report. The Revenue failed to prove that the invoice price was influenced by any extra-commercial consideration, and the statutory exceptions for discarding transaction value were not shown to apply. The blades were old, unused and sold on a distress-sale basis at the invoiced price, which supported acceptance of the declared value. The freight omission was later corrected during investigation, differential duty was paid before the show-cause notice, and no mala fide was established. The demand, confiscation and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>