<?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 (5) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342641</link>
    <description>Refund of special additional duty on imported set top boxes was treated as admissible where the goods were subsequently sold in the domestic market, VAT was paid on the invoice value, and the sale description differed from the import description. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the same assessee&#039;s case and on Circular No. 6/2008-Cus, which clarifies that Notification No. 102/2007-Cus does not require VAT or sales tax to match or exceed the SAD rate. It accepted that the packing list showed inclusion of set top boxes and held that a lower resale price than the import RSP was not a valid ground to deny refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 10:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342641</link>
      <description>Refund of special additional duty on imported set top boxes was treated as admissible where the goods were subsequently sold in the domestic market, VAT was paid on the invoice value, and the sale description differed from the import description. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the same assessee&#039;s case and on Circular No. 6/2008-Cus, which clarifies that Notification No. 102/2007-Cus does not require VAT or sales tax to match or exceed the SAD rate. It accepted that the packing list showed inclusion of set top boxes and held that a lower resale price than the import RSP was not a valid ground to deny refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>