<?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 (12) TMI 36 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240371</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to set aside the enhancement of the assessable value of flatbed knitting machines/crochet yarn machines imported from China. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the importers had cleared the goods at the higher value without protest, the Tribunal emphasized that the declared transaction value should be accepted unless there is evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal found the chartered engineer&#039;s endorsement of the declared value as correct and deemed the bill of entry used for enhancement as provisional and not sufficient evidence. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2013 22:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 36 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240371</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to set aside the enhancement of the assessable value of flatbed knitting machines/crochet yarn machines imported from China. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the importers had cleared the goods at the higher value without protest, the Tribunal emphasized that the declared transaction value should be accepted unless there is evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal found the chartered engineer&#039;s endorsement of the declared value as correct and deemed the bill of entry used for enhancement as provisional and not sufficient evidence. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>