<?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 (12) TMI 649 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254306</link>
    <description>Royalty or lump sum technical know-how payments are includible in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) only if they are related to the imported goods and payable, directly or indirectly, as a condition of their sale. Where the royalty is payable on the sale of manufactured products, and the agreement excludes standard bought-out components and the landed cost of imported components from the royalty base, it is not a condition of sale of the imported goods. On unchanged facts, the earlier Tribunal view that the royalty was unrelated to the imports governed the dispute, while Revenue&#039;s cited precedent was distinguished on its own facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2015 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 649 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254306</link>
      <description>Royalty or lump sum technical know-how payments are includible in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) only if they are related to the imported goods and payable, directly or indirectly, as a condition of their sale. Where the royalty is payable on the sale of manufactured products, and the agreement excludes standard bought-out components and the landed cost of imported components from the royalty base, it is not a condition of sale of the imported goods. On unchanged facts, the earlier Tribunal view that the royalty was unrelated to the imports governed the dispute, while Revenue&#039;s cited precedent was distinguished on its own facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>