<?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>2008 (5) TMI 507 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123684</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s decision to reject the transaction value of imported &quot;glow in the dark PVC insects&quot; and adopt a higher value. It found the discount given by the supplier to the repeated buyer as justified, emphasizing common business practices. The rejection based on the lack of contemporaneous import evidence was deemed unwarranted, as the transaction value was undisputed, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:15:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 507 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123684</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s decision to reject the transaction value of imported &quot;glow in the dark PVC insects&quot; and adopt a higher value. It found the discount given by the supplier to the repeated buyer as justified, emphasizing common business practices. The rejection based on the lack of contemporaneous import evidence was deemed unwarranted, as the transaction value was undisputed, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>