<?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 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358674</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi&#039;s order-in-original, ruling in favor of the appellant, an air transport business, in a dispute over the valuation of leftover Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) in aircraft tanks post international trips. The Tribunal held that adding notional freight to the assessable value of ATF was incorrect as there was no ascertainable freight element present. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Wipro Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized determining transactional value based on actual costs paid. The penalty under Section 112 for alleged customs duty evasion was also dismissed, noting the appellant&#039;s compliance history and absence of revenue loss. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 15:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358674</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi&#039;s order-in-original, ruling in favor of the appellant, an air transport business, in a dispute over the valuation of leftover Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) in aircraft tanks post international trips. The Tribunal held that adding notional freight to the assessable value of ATF was incorrect as there was no ascertainable freight element present. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Wipro Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized determining transactional value based on actual costs paid. The penalty under Section 112 for alleged customs duty evasion was also dismissed, noting the appellant&#039;s compliance history and absence of revenue loss. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>