<?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>2008 (1) TMI 280 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30253</link>
    <description>Consultancy and engineering fees paid to an unrelated foreign consultant were not includible in the assessable value of imported machinery because the consultant had no role in designing the goods supplied by independent vendors. The agreement confined the consultant&#039;s work to project consultancy, supervision, review and assistance, while the machinery designs were the suppliers&#039; own and were not shown to have been prepared under the consultant&#039;s control. Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) did not apply, as the design and drawings were already with the suppliers, and Rule 9(1)(c) also failed because no royalty or sale-linked technical fee payable to the suppliers was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 280 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30253</link>
      <description>Consultancy and engineering fees paid to an unrelated foreign consultant were not includible in the assessable value of imported machinery because the consultant had no role in designing the goods supplied by independent vendors. The agreement confined the consultant&#039;s work to project consultancy, supervision, review and assistance, while the machinery designs were the suppliers&#039; own and were not shown to have been prepared under the consultant&#039;s control. Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) did not apply, as the design and drawings were already with the suppliers, and Rule 9(1)(c) also failed because no royalty or sale-linked technical fee payable to the suppliers was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>