<?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>2015 (7) TMI 1095 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182592</link>
    <description>The case involved disputes regarding the assessable value of export goods (Iron Ore Fines), calculation of duty basis (&#039;Wet Weight&#039; or &#039;Dry Weight&#039;), and determination of assessable value based on transaction value or Bench-Marked Price. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the assessable value of export goods, following its prior decision. However, it upheld the previous ruling in favor of the assessee on the calculation of duty basis. The matter concerning the assessable value determination was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation, with a timeframe of three months provided for resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 10:22:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 1095 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182592</link>
      <description>The case involved disputes regarding the assessable value of export goods (Iron Ore Fines), calculation of duty basis (&#039;Wet Weight&#039; or &#039;Dry Weight&#039;), and determination of assessable value based on transaction value or Bench-Marked Price. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the assessable value of export goods, following its prior decision. However, it upheld the previous ruling in favor of the assessee on the calculation of duty basis. The matter concerning the assessable value determination was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation, with a timeframe of three months provided for resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>