<?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>2018 (4) TMI 28 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357917</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeals concerning the import of &#039;primary aluminium ingots&#039; by M/s Apar Industries Limited under the DEEC scheme. The rejection of the declared value based on discrepancies with the London Metal Exchange Bulletin was overturned by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized the importer&#039;s lack of opportunity to rebut the re-assessment and the absence of justification for assessable value computation. It concluded that the impugned order was proper, highlighting the burden of proof on the proper officer and the insufficiency of grounds for rejecting the declared value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 28 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357917</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeals concerning the import of &#039;primary aluminium ingots&#039; by M/s Apar Industries Limited under the DEEC scheme. The rejection of the declared value based on discrepancies with the London Metal Exchange Bulletin was overturned by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized the importer&#039;s lack of opportunity to rebut the re-assessment and the absence of justification for assessable value computation. It concluded that the impugned order was proper, highlighting the burden of proof on the proper officer and the insufficiency of grounds for rejecting the declared value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>