<?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 1436 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359325</link>
    <description>For a used imported car valued under the Transfer of Residence Rules, once the dealer invoice was accepted and maximum permissible depreciation of 70% was granted, further deductions were not allowable. Trade discount under the 1964 Board circular was held inapplicable because that circular concerned direct import of new motor cars, not used cars. VAT refund, dealer&#039;s margin, and unproven inland haulage charges were also rejected as not legally relevant or not shown to have formed part of the assessed value. The value of accessories fitted by the dealer was accepted on the basis of the invoice. The assessable value upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1436 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359325</link>
      <description>For a used imported car valued under the Transfer of Residence Rules, once the dealer invoice was accepted and maximum permissible depreciation of 70% was granted, further deductions were not allowable. Trade discount under the 1964 Board circular was held inapplicable because that circular concerned direct import of new motor cars, not used cars. VAT refund, dealer&#039;s margin, and unproven inland haulage charges were also rejected as not legally relevant or not shown to have formed part of the assessed value. The value of accessories fitted by the dealer was accepted on the basis of the invoice. The assessable value upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>