<?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>2004 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52784</link>
    <description>Technology transfer fee paid for a basic engineering package was held not includible in the assessable value of imported machinery under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The provision applies only to engineering, development, design, plans and sketches necessary for production of the imported goods and undertaken outside India; here, the package contained only general process diagrams, layout and size specifications, while the detailed engineering drawings used for procurement were prepared in India by a separate firm. The link to the imported machinery was therefore too remote, so the addition was disallowed and the order was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:18:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52784</link>
      <description>Technology transfer fee paid for a basic engineering package was held not includible in the assessable value of imported machinery under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The provision applies only to engineering, development, design, plans and sketches necessary for production of the imported goods and undertaken outside India; here, the package contained only general process diagrams, layout and size specifications, while the detailed engineering drawings used for procurement were prepared in India by a separate firm. The link to the imported machinery was therefore too remote, so the addition was disallowed and the order was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>