<?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 (7) TMI 688 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124117</link>
    <description>Technical know-how fee paid under separate agreements for manufacture in India was not includible in the assessable value of imported capital goods or inputs under Rule 9(1)(c) because the agreements did not make the payment a condition precedent to import and no direct nexus with the imported goods was shown. Any connection, if at all, was only with products manufactured in India, and the absence of proof of payment of the later amount also defeated loading it into value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:59:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 688 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124117</link>
      <description>Technical know-how fee paid under separate agreements for manufacture in India was not includible in the assessable value of imported capital goods or inputs under Rule 9(1)(c) because the agreements did not make the payment a condition precedent to import and no direct nexus with the imported goods was shown. Any connection, if at all, was only with products manufactured in India, and the absence of proof of payment of the later amount also defeated loading it into value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>