<?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>2005 (7) TMI 167 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54202</link>
    <description>An earlier customs valuation order accepting the declared transaction value had attained finality, and the Department&#039;s appeal against it was dismissed as withdrawn. Applying res judicata, the tribunal held that the same valuation issue could not be reopened in a later proceeding merely on the basis of subsequent investigation, because the earlier determination had not been lawfully displaced. The reopening was therefore impermissible and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:27:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 167 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54202</link>
      <description>An earlier customs valuation order accepting the declared transaction value had attained finality, and the Department&#039;s appeal against it was dismissed as withdrawn. Applying res judicata, the tribunal held that the same valuation issue could not be reopened in a later proceeding merely on the basis of subsequent investigation, because the earlier determination had not been lawfully displaced. The reopening was therefore impermissible and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>