<?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>1996 (8) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44308</link>
    <description>A customs exemption entry was construed according to its plain language, and cups of roller bearings imported separately were held to fall within the specific entry for cups and cones of roller bearings rather than the residuary entry. The Tribunal&#039;s narrower reading was rejected. On valuation, rejection of the transaction value was accepted as justified, but the Collector&#039;s comparative method was found unsustainable because the links used between unbranded and branded goods, and between goods of different origins, were not sufficiently proximate or defensible. The valuation was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44308</link>
      <description>A customs exemption entry was construed according to its plain language, and cups of roller bearings imported separately were held to fall within the specific entry for cups and cones of roller bearings rather than the residuary entry. The Tribunal&#039;s narrower reading was rejected. On valuation, rejection of the transaction value was accepted as justified, but the Collector&#039;s comparative method was found unsustainable because the links used between unbranded and branded goods, and between goods of different origins, were not sufficiently proximate or defensible. The valuation was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>