<?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>2005 (7) TMI 523 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116984</link>
    <description>Design and engineering, documentation, project handling, workshop tests and inspections connected with an imported system were held not includible in assessable value where the contract materials and supplier certificate showed they related to layout, installation arrangements and other pre-import or post-import activities, and the licensing committee had already excluded them from CIF value. The export obligation under the EPCG licence was treated as fulfilled because the export obligation certificate accepted the exports and condoned delay in one shipment, so Customs could not allege non-fulfilment. With the duty demands unsustainable and no suppression or deliberate misdeclaration shown, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were also set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:37:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 523 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116984</link>
      <description>Design and engineering, documentation, project handling, workshop tests and inspections connected with an imported system were held not includible in assessable value where the contract materials and supplier certificate showed they related to layout, installation arrangements and other pre-import or post-import activities, and the licensing committee had already excluded them from CIF value. The export obligation under the EPCG licence was treated as fulfilled because the export obligation certificate accepted the exports and condoned delay in one shipment, so Customs could not allege non-fulfilment. With the duty demands unsustainable and no suppression or deliberate misdeclaration shown, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were also set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>