<?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>2010 (8) TMI 747 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211992</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned orders. It ruled that the FOB price of the export goods constitutes the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, precluding the deduction of the duty element. The Tribunal emphasized the clarity of Section 14&#039;s language, rejecting the cum-duty price interpretation. It also rejected the application of Central Excise and Service Tax principles to Customs valuation and affirmed the binding nature of CBEC circulars on departmental authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 747 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211992</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned orders. It ruled that the FOB price of the export goods constitutes the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, precluding the deduction of the duty element. The Tribunal emphasized the clarity of Section 14&#039;s language, rejecting the cum-duty price interpretation. It also rejected the application of Central Excise and Service Tax principles to Customs valuation and affirmed the binding nature of CBEC circulars on departmental authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>