<?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 (5) TMI 713 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247786</link>
    <description>Royalty and licence fees paid under agreements for import of beta and digibeta tapes containing films were held includible in the assessable value because the payments were a condition precedent to supply and formed part of the contractual consideration under the valuation rules. On limitation, the majority found that extended duty demand could not be sustained absent deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty, particularly where the importer disclosed media cost but did not disclose the additional contractual payments and the legal position was unsettled at the relevant time. The demand, interest and penal consequences were therefore time barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 713 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247786</link>
      <description>Royalty and licence fees paid under agreements for import of beta and digibeta tapes containing films were held includible in the assessable value because the payments were a condition precedent to supply and formed part of the contractual consideration under the valuation rules. On limitation, the majority found that extended duty demand could not be sustained absent deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty, particularly where the importer disclosed media cost but did not disclose the additional contractual payments and the legal position was unsettled at the relevant time. The demand, interest and penal consequences were therefore time barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>