<?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 (11) TMI 127 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54691</link>
    <description>For valuation of domestic clearances by a 100% EOU to a related buyer, the export value of the same or similar goods could be used where it provided a better comparable than cost construction under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The department had rejected the invoice price because the buyer and seller were related and sought valuation on cost basis, but the available export sales of identical yarn to Norway and the UAE were higher than the domestic sale price. On that basis, the export price was accepted as the proper valuation benchmark, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted during the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:28:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93168" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 127 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54691</link>
      <description>For valuation of domestic clearances by a 100% EOU to a related buyer, the export value of the same or similar goods could be used where it provided a better comparable than cost construction under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The department had rejected the invoice price because the buyer and seller were related and sought valuation on cost basis, but the available export sales of identical yarn to Norway and the UAE were higher than the domestic sale price. On that basis, the export price was accepted as the proper valuation benchmark, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted during the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>