<?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>2025 (7) TMI 497 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774429</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai set aside the appellate order enhancing valuation of imported slack wax (202.990 MTs and 67.240 MTs). The tribunal found the reassessment process fundamentally flawed as it was based on a non-speaking order violating natural justice principles. The original authority failed to provide reasoning for value enhancement, and the appellate authority wrongly sought comparisons to deemed values rather than transaction values as required under amended section 14 of Customs Act 1962. The tribunal noted absence of contemporaneous BOE references and lack of opportunity for the appellant to rebut evidence. The appeal was allowed after finding the entire reassessment process legally defective and factually baseless.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:50:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 497 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774429</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai set aside the appellate order enhancing valuation of imported slack wax (202.990 MTs and 67.240 MTs). The tribunal found the reassessment process fundamentally flawed as it was based on a non-speaking order violating natural justice principles. The original authority failed to provide reasoning for value enhancement, and the appellate authority wrongly sought comparisons to deemed values rather than transaction values as required under amended section 14 of Customs Act 1962. The tribunal noted absence of contemporaneous BOE references and lack of opportunity for the appellant to rebut evidence. The appeal was allowed after finding the entire reassessment process legally defective and factually baseless.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>