<?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 (2) TMI 403 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54392</link>
    <description>Old and used photocopiers treated as capital goods permissible under the EXIM Policy could not be denied import on the footing that an import licence was required; a departmental circular could not override the policy position reflected in prior decisions, so confiscation and fine on that basis were unsustainable. On valuation, the Revenue bore the burden of proving under-valuation and, absent evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods, the declared transaction value of second-hand machinery had to be accepted. Redetermination under Rule 8 by applying depreciation was therefore unjustified, and the declared value stood.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:04:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 403 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54392</link>
      <description>Old and used photocopiers treated as capital goods permissible under the EXIM Policy could not be denied import on the footing that an import licence was required; a departmental circular could not override the policy position reflected in prior decisions, so confiscation and fine on that basis were unsustainable. On valuation, the Revenue bore the burden of proving under-valuation and, absent evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods, the declared transaction value of second-hand machinery had to be accepted. Redetermination under Rule 8 by applying depreciation was therefore unjustified, and the declared value stood.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>