<?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>2000 (11) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50226</link>
    <description>A separate payment for technical know-how used for plant modernisation was not includible in the assessable value of imported raw materials because the agreement did not make purchase of the know-how a condition of sale, and it allowed sourcing raw materials from any supplier. The Tribunal therefore rejected inclusion of DM 175,000 in the assessable value. On the separate valuation question, the Tribunal noted that the earlier appellate authority had not finally determined whether the imported goods had to be tested against the three values under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, so that aspect was remanded for fresh decision after allowing the assessee to establish the relevant facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:08:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50226</link>
      <description>A separate payment for technical know-how used for plant modernisation was not includible in the assessable value of imported raw materials because the agreement did not make purchase of the know-how a condition of sale, and it allowed sourcing raw materials from any supplier. The Tribunal therefore rejected inclusion of DM 175,000 in the assessable value. On the separate valuation question, the Tribunal noted that the earlier appellate authority had not finally determined whether the imported goods had to be tested against the three values under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, so that aspect was remanded for fresh decision after allowing the assessee to establish the relevant facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>