<?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>2010 (9) TMI 1006 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170095</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the enhanced value of Thermal Transfer Ribbon and Toner based on quality comparison and NIDB data. It rejected challenges to the valuation under Rule 8, emphasizing the quality similarities between Katun and LG toner. Despite brand differences, the Tribunal supported the valuation adjustment. It also reduced the redemption fine to &amp;amp;8377;35,000 and the penalty to &amp;amp;8377;10,000, considering the limited impact on duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2015 15:46:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1006 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170095</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the enhanced value of Thermal Transfer Ribbon and Toner based on quality comparison and NIDB data. It rejected challenges to the valuation under Rule 8, emphasizing the quality similarities between Katun and LG toner. Despite brand differences, the Tribunal supported the valuation adjustment. It also reduced the redemption fine to &amp;amp;8377;35,000 and the penalty to &amp;amp;8377;10,000, considering the limited impact on duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>