<?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>2013 (8) TMI 693 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236401</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found a denial of natural justice during adjudication proceedings, emphasizing the importance of allowing cross-examination and demonstration of equipment functionalities. It clarified that the value of imported networking appliances for customs duty should include embedded software costs. The appellants&#039; right to cross-examine witnesses was upheld, directing the Commissioner to decide on the issue and provide reasons if denied. The Tribunal instructed a reevaluation of post-importation services and software licensing fees, remanding the matter for further adjudication, allowing the appellants to present evidence. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 693 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236401</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found a denial of natural justice during adjudication proceedings, emphasizing the importance of allowing cross-examination and demonstration of equipment functionalities. It clarified that the value of imported networking appliances for customs duty should include embedded software costs. The appellants&#039; right to cross-examine witnesses was upheld, directing the Commissioner to decide on the issue and provide reasons if denied. The Tribunal instructed a reevaluation of post-importation services and software licensing fees, remanding the matter for further adjudication, allowing the appellants to present evidence. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>