<?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>2006 (9) TMI 426 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120128</link>
    <description>Complete waiver of pre-deposit was declined in an appeal concerning classification and valuation of imported goods. A prima facie case was found on classification because exemption was claimed for the goods as cleared, and Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not considered necessary for that purpose. On valuation, no comparable prima facie case was established; statements of company officers indicated that contract value had been apportioned between hardware and software to secure software duty benefit, so the enhanced value challenge did not justify full waiver. The Tribunal required a substantial deposit and granted waiver of the balance pre-deposit with stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:16:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 426 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120128</link>
      <description>Complete waiver of pre-deposit was declined in an appeal concerning classification and valuation of imported goods. A prima facie case was found on classification because exemption was claimed for the goods as cleared, and Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not considered necessary for that purpose. On valuation, no comparable prima facie case was established; statements of company officers indicated that contract value had been apportioned between hardware and software to secure software duty benefit, so the enhanced value challenge did not justify full waiver. The Tribunal required a substantial deposit and granted waiver of the balance pre-deposit with stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>