<?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>2004 (7) TMI 643 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173277</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the LNG facility imports qualify for concessional duty under Tariff Item 9801.00 as part of an integrated power project. The Tribunal adjusted the inclusion of offshore service values in the equipment&#039;s declared value to 28.73%. It also set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under Sections 111(m) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the provisional nature of assessments and the department&#039;s awareness of the Offshore Services Contract. Consequently, Appeal Nos. C/601/2001 and C/519/2000 were allowed, while Appeal No. C/520/2000 was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 643 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173277</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the LNG facility imports qualify for concessional duty under Tariff Item 9801.00 as part of an integrated power project. The Tribunal adjusted the inclusion of offshore service values in the equipment&#039;s declared value to 28.73%. It also set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under Sections 111(m) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the provisional nature of assessments and the department&#039;s awareness of the Offshore Services Contract. Consequently, Appeal Nos. C/601/2001 and C/519/2000 were allowed, while Appeal No. C/520/2000 was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>