<?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>2017 (1) TMI 280 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337200</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the valuation of imported goods, upholding the lower authorities&#039; decision that there was no unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the sale price did not cover the full customs duty amount, as evidenced by the Chartered Accountant certificate and Balance-sheet provided by the respondent. The judgment was delivered on 02.12.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 280 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337200</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the valuation of imported goods, upholding the lower authorities&#039; decision that there was no unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the sale price did not cover the full customs duty amount, as evidenced by the Chartered Accountant certificate and Balance-sheet provided by the respondent. The judgment was delivered on 02.12.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>