<?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 (4) TMI 194 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54336</link>
    <description>Valuation of export oriented unit clearances into the domestic tariff area must follow the statutory customs valuation scheme, and the department cannot displace invoice value by adopting unrelated market comparisons or a cost-plus basis unless comparable goods and similarly placed clearances are shown. In this matter, the comparison with other manufacturers was rejected because the goods were not established as identical or comparable, and the Rule 8 cost method was also found inapplicable on the facts. The assessee&#039;s invoice-based transaction value was accepted as the proper basis, and the departmental demand was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:03:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 194 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54336</link>
      <description>Valuation of export oriented unit clearances into the domestic tariff area must follow the statutory customs valuation scheme, and the department cannot displace invoice value by adopting unrelated market comparisons or a cost-plus basis unless comparable goods and similarly placed clearances are shown. In this matter, the comparison with other manufacturers was rejected because the goods were not established as identical or comparable, and the Rule 8 cost method was also found inapplicable on the facts. The assessee&#039;s invoice-based transaction value was accepted as the proper basis, and the departmental demand was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>