<?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>2002 (2) TMI 211 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51192</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, M/s. Peerless Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., in the case involving the valuation of stainless steel balls for export and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal concluded that the declared value of the goods was acceptable, emphasizing that no show-cause notice challenging the valuation was issued within the prescribed period. They rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the declared value, highlighting the conformity of the exported goods to specifications and the lack of evidence supporting inflated valuation. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:20:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 211 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51192</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, M/s. Peerless Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., in the case involving the valuation of stainless steel balls for export and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal concluded that the declared value of the goods was acceptable, emphasizing that no show-cause notice challenging the valuation was issued within the prescribed period. They rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the declared value, highlighting the conformity of the exported goods to specifications and the lack of evidence supporting inflated valuation. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>