<?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 (9) TMI 131 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32245</link>
    <description>Defective terry towels cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area may be assessed on invoice value where they are assorted rejects and no material shows the transaction value is unreliable. For exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E., the relevant test is whether an imported input is an essential part of the manufacturing process, not whether it remains visible in the final product; the Dilasoft finding was therefore set aside for reconsideration under the governing test. A further exemption issue under Notification No. 2/95-C.E. concerning the permissible quantity limit required fresh adjudication because it had not been raised in the show cause notice and no finding had been recorded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 131 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32245</link>
      <description>Defective terry towels cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area may be assessed on invoice value where they are assorted rejects and no material shows the transaction value is unreliable. For exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E., the relevant test is whether an imported input is an essential part of the manufacturing process, not whether it remains visible in the final product; the Dilasoft finding was therefore set aside for reconsideration under the governing test. A further exemption issue under Notification No. 2/95-C.E. concerning the permissible quantity limit required fresh adjudication because it had not been raised in the show cause notice and no finding had been recorded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>