<?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 90 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240425</link>
    <description>Technical know-how fee and running royalty paid under the collaboration agreements were not includible in the assessable value of imported CKD components and parts. The agreements related the technical assistance and licence to design, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, sale and after-sales service of cars manufactured in India, and the royalty was linked to ex-factory vehicle price and the indigenised portion of CKD components. These features showed the payments were connected to post-importation activities, not to the imported goods themselves, and no fresh factual or legal basis was shown to disturb the declared transaction value or establish that the payments were a condition of sale. The appellant therefore succeeded before CESTAT Mumbai.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:05:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 90 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240425</link>
      <description>Technical know-how fee and running royalty paid under the collaboration agreements were not includible in the assessable value of imported CKD components and parts. The agreements related the technical assistance and licence to design, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, sale and after-sales service of cars manufactured in India, and the royalty was linked to ex-factory vehicle price and the indigenised portion of CKD components. These features showed the payments were connected to post-importation activities, not to the imported goods themselves, and no fresh factual or legal basis was shown to disturb the declared transaction value or establish that the payments were a condition of sale. The appellant therefore succeeded before CESTAT Mumbai.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>