<?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 (9) TMI 213 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53368</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that running royalty and technical documentation fees should not be included in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules unless they are directly related to the imported goods and are a condition for their sale. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal determined that the fees in question were associated with manufacturing contract products in India, not with the imported goods themselves. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:17:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 213 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53368</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that running royalty and technical documentation fees should not be included in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules unless they are directly related to the imported goods and are a condition for their sale. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal determined that the fees in question were associated with manufacturing contract products in India, not with the imported goods themselves. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>