<?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>2014 (4) TMI 497 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246060</link>
    <description>Used railway tracks unsuitable for reuse as rails were classified as waste and scrap under heading 7204, because the nature of the goods, supported by examination findings and prior consistent interpretation, outweighed their description as railway material; the Revenue&#039;s classification challenge failed. The Tribunal also held that the declared transaction value could not be rejected without adequate evidence of extra remittance or a reliable basis for enhancement, particularly where comparable scrap imports were not shown to justify loading; the value enhancement was therefore unsustainable. The first appellate order was sustained and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 497 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246060</link>
      <description>Used railway tracks unsuitable for reuse as rails were classified as waste and scrap under heading 7204, because the nature of the goods, supported by examination findings and prior consistent interpretation, outweighed their description as railway material; the Revenue&#039;s classification challenge failed. The Tribunal also held that the declared transaction value could not be rejected without adequate evidence of extra remittance or a reliable basis for enhancement, particularly where comparable scrap imports were not shown to justify loading; the value enhancement was therefore unsustainable. The first appellate order was sustained and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>