<?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 (11) TMI 190 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34181</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order in a case involving the valuation of goods under the Customs Act. The dispute centered on the treatment of consignment agents, transportation costs, and the application of valuation rules. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the demand for duty was time-barred and penalties were not justified. The decision emphasized the significance of the limitation period and the correct interpretation of valuation rules in determining duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 190 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34181</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order in a case involving the valuation of goods under the Customs Act. The dispute centered on the treatment of consignment agents, transportation costs, and the application of valuation rules. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the demand for duty was time-barred and penalties were not justified. The decision emphasized the significance of the limitation period and the correct interpretation of valuation rules in determining duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>