<?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 (11) TMI 464 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124492</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Chief Commissioner&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the respondents in a case involving a dispute over the short levy of duty on imported master jumbo film rolls for manufacturing cinematographic polyester film. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value declared by the respondents should be accepted as there was no evidence of excess quantity received or paid for. Despite the Revenue&#039;s challenge regarding the percentage of waste, the core issue remained the lack of material evidence to dispute the declared transaction value. The appeals were rejected due to the absence of proof supporting the Revenue&#039;s claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:44:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 464 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124492</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Chief Commissioner&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the respondents in a case involving a dispute over the short levy of duty on imported master jumbo film rolls for manufacturing cinematographic polyester film. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value declared by the respondents should be accepted as there was no evidence of excess quantity received or paid for. Despite the Revenue&#039;s challenge regarding the percentage of waste, the core issue remained the lack of material evidence to dispute the declared transaction value. The appeals were rejected due to the absence of proof supporting the Revenue&#039;s claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>