<?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 (3) TMI 1629 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198850</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of imported sports shoes for Customs duty. The appellant sought classification under Tariff Heading 6401.10 for duty exemption, based on declared retail prices below Rs. 125 per pair. However, the Revenue argued for classification under 6401.19, requiring duty payment, emphasizing that the retail sale price must not exceed Rs. 125 per pair as per the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s evidence insufficient, noting that retail sale price determination must comply with Legal Metrology Act rules and be affixed on goods, not merely declared in invoices. Without concrete evidence, the assessment under 6401.19 stood, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1629 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198850</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of imported sports shoes for Customs duty. The appellant sought classification under Tariff Heading 6401.10 for duty exemption, based on declared retail prices below Rs. 125 per pair. However, the Revenue argued for classification under 6401.19, requiring duty payment, emphasizing that the retail sale price must not exceed Rs. 125 per pair as per the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s evidence insufficient, noting that retail sale price determination must comply with Legal Metrology Act rules and be affixed on goods, not merely declared in invoices. Without concrete evidence, the assessment under 6401.19 stood, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>