<?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 (9) TMI 766 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778277</link>
    <description>Depreciation on capital goods imported by a 100% EOU must be computed under the debonding notification regime, not extended up to the date of duty payment merely because payment was delayed. Where the unit had not achieved positive NFE and had failed to fulfil export obligations, the applicable notification required duty on the depreciated value at the rate in force on the date the undertaking ceased to be a 100% EOU, with depreciation in cases of negative NFE confined to the proportion of NFE actually achieved. Depreciation up to the date of payment was therefore inconsistent with the governing framework, and the adjudicating authority was directed to recalculate duty accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 766 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778277</link>
      <description>Depreciation on capital goods imported by a 100% EOU must be computed under the debonding notification regime, not extended up to the date of duty payment merely because payment was delayed. Where the unit had not achieved positive NFE and had failed to fulfil export obligations, the applicable notification required duty on the depreciated value at the rate in force on the date the undertaking ceased to be a 100% EOU, with depreciation in cases of negative NFE confined to the proportion of NFE actually achieved. Depreciation up to the date of payment was therefore inconsistent with the governing framework, and the adjudicating authority was directed to recalculate duty accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>