<?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>2024 (4) TMI 1019 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751838</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding customs valuation of imported modular panels. The importer, a subsidiary of Paschal Germany, received 25-40% discounts which the department challenged as excessive for related parties. The tribunal found the parent company&#039;s Managing Director confirmed this discount range was standard practice globally for all customers, including non-related parties like NCC India. The department failed to provide concrete evidence to reject the transaction value, relying only on conjectures. The Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded statutory functions by directing fresh enquiry instead of deciding the appeal. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, accepting the declared transaction value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1019 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751838</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding customs valuation of imported modular panels. The importer, a subsidiary of Paschal Germany, received 25-40% discounts which the department challenged as excessive for related parties. The tribunal found the parent company&#039;s Managing Director confirmed this discount range was standard practice globally for all customers, including non-related parties like NCC India. The department failed to provide concrete evidence to reject the transaction value, relying only on conjectures. The Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded statutory functions by directing fresh enquiry instead of deciding the appeal. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, accepting the declared transaction value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>