<?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>IGST demand quashed as freight, insurance and landing charges held included in CIF import price under agreements</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94650</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of IGST, interest and penalty arising from alleged short-payment on freight, insurance and landing charges for imports from Bhutan. The Tribunal found that, under the distributorship and FOR agreements, the invoice prices were on CIF/all-inclusive terms, covering transportation, insurance, loading and forwarding up to the buyer&#039;s destination. Certificates from the transporter and a clarification from the Bhutan supplier confirmed that no additional freight or insurance was charged to the appellant. Consequently, the allegation of non-inclusion of freight, insurance and landing cost in assessable value, as well as suppression or misstatement justifying penalty or extended limitation, was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 13:29:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 13:29:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>IGST demand quashed as freight, insurance and landing charges held included in CIF import price under agreements</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94650</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of IGST, interest and penalty arising from alleged short-payment on freight, insurance and landing charges for imports from Bhutan. The Tribunal found that, under the distributorship and FOR agreements, the invoice prices were on CIF/all-inclusive terms, covering transportation, insurance, loading and forwarding up to the buyer&#039;s destination. Certificates from the transporter and a clarification from the Bhutan supplier confirmed that no additional freight or insurance was charged to the appellant. Consequently, the allegation of non-inclusion of freight, insurance and landing cost in assessable value, as well as suppression or misstatement justifying penalty or extended limitation, was rejected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 13:29:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>