<?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>Assistance and service fees not includible in assessable value of imported capital goods under Rule 10(1)(c) CVR 2007</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92659</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that amounts paid under an Assistance and Service Agreement for setting up plant, providing technical assistance and post-installation support are not includible in the assessable value of imported capital goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the CVR, 2007 where the agreement does not make such payments a condition of import nor establish a direct nexus with the import of specific tools/spares. The Tribunal, after considering higher-court precedent on when technical/royalty payments may be added, found the agreement distinguishable on its terms, set aside the impugned valuation addition, and allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=851684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Assistance and service fees not includible in assessable value of imported capital goods under Rule 10(1)(c) CVR 2007</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92659</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that amounts paid under an Assistance and Service Agreement for setting up plant, providing technical assistance and post-installation support are not includible in the assessable value of imported capital goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the CVR, 2007 where the agreement does not make such payments a condition of import nor establish a direct nexus with the import of specific tools/spares. The Tribunal, after considering higher-court precedent on when technical/royalty payments may be added, found the agreement distinguishable on its terms, set aside the impugned valuation addition, and allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>