<?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 (8) TMI 230 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53303</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appellants and a group were not related persons under Rule 2(2)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules as there was no evidence of a third person owning stock in both entities. The technical know-how fee paid was deemed unrelated to the imported goods and not a condition for the sale of capital goods. As such, the Tribunal ruled that the fee should not be included in the assessable value, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:39:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 230 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53303</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appellants and a group were not related persons under Rule 2(2)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules as there was no evidence of a third person owning stock in both entities. The technical know-how fee paid was deemed unrelated to the imported goods and not a condition for the sale of capital goods. As such, the Tribunal ruled that the fee should not be included in the assessable value, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>