<?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 (5) TMI 207 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31611</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision that the royalty payable by the respondent did not need to be included in the value of the imported goods. The agreement did not link royalty payment to the imported goods, and there was no restriction on sourcing components externally. As the revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting this, the Tribunal found the appeal without merit and affirmed the lower authorities&#039; decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 207 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31611</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision that the royalty payable by the respondent did not need to be included in the value of the imported goods. The agreement did not link royalty payment to the imported goods, and there was no restriction on sourcing components externally. As the revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting this, the Tribunal found the appeal without merit and affirmed the lower authorities&#039; decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>