<?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 (9) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348409</link>
    <description>Enhancement of the assessable value of imported polyester knitted fabrics on the basis of a DRI alert was not sustained because the alleged undervaluation had already been decided in the appellant&#039;s own case. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order relied on an earlier order-in-appeal that had later been set aside in the same dispute. As the valuation issue stood settled by the prior Tribunal decision, no merit remained in the enhancement. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:04:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348409</link>
      <description>Enhancement of the assessable value of imported polyester knitted fabrics on the basis of a DRI alert was not sustained because the alleged undervaluation had already been decided in the appellant&#039;s own case. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order relied on an earlier order-in-appeal that had later been set aside in the same dispute. As the valuation issue stood settled by the prior Tribunal decision, no merit remained in the enhancement. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>