2017 (10) TMI 767 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner, Customs, (General) Customs Brokerage Section
Maintainability of appeal - section 129A of the Customs Act,1962 - power of Commissioner of Customs to reject the application for grant of license - Held that - The law is well settled. An appeal is always a creation of a statute and unless there is a specific remedy provided in the statute by way of an appeal, a right of appeal is never available to a litigant. - The Regulation of 2013 framed under subsection (1) of section 146 is a complete Cod....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 766 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s. D.H.L Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax
Refund of excess duty paid - denial on the ground that the same is time-barred and that required documents were not furnished by the appellants - Held that - the appellants have filed the refund claim on 06.05.2012 whereas originally M/s. BEML filed the refund claim which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2012 on the ground that BEML has neither paid the duty nor borne the duty. After the rejection of r....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 765 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Lulu International Shopping Mail Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs
Confiscation - Redemption fine - penalty - amusement park equipments like crazy cars, mini disco, roller coaster etc. under EPCG scheme - the goods appeared to be used one - since the Revenue has not produced any evidence which shows that there is a guilty mind on the part of the appellant to import the second hand goods, therefore the imposition of penalty is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, penalty set aside - redempti....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 764 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Leadking Sea Air Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore
Penalty on CHA u/s 114(i) and 114 AA of the CA, 1962 - abetting with the exporters to clandestine export of their product - it was alleged that the main appellant herein being a CHA has not verified the antecedent of the exporters who sought to export Ketamine Hydrochloride in the guise of garments but did not notice it was concealed inside the said consignment which was detected after the Customs investigation and based on information - Held tha....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 763 - CESTAT BANGALORE
AXA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, Bangalore
100 EOU - Violation of import conditions - obsolete goods - Held that - the concerned officials of the appellant themselves have admitted that goods had become obsolete and the same had not been put to use. Further there was no evidence put up on record that when the goods were usable and had operational life, they were installed and put to use by the appellant - demand of duty upheld. - The impugned order confiscating the goods listed in Annexur....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 762 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Shri. Mahesh P. Patel Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Nhavasheva
Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - cross examination sought for by appellant, which was not provided - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - appellants have not received hearing notice of the said dates - principle of natural justice was not adhered to by the adjudicating authority - the adjudicating authority to allow cross examination of the witnesses - appeal allowed by way of remand........ + More
2017 (10) TMI 761 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Mahindra Engineering Design & Development Company Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai
100 EOU - N/N. 52/03-cus dated 31-3-2003 - non-fulfillment of conditions relating to clearance under STPI scheme - Held that - there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellant to violate any condition of licence provisions. Initially truck was supposed to be cleared under Notification no.52/03. When the appellant was unable to fulfill the condition they immediately paid the customs duty and cleared the goods, the conduct of the appell....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 760 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Padmalay Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Import of restricted goods - old and used photocopiers - confiscation - penalty - Held that - the import of photocopiers had become restricted only after 19.10.2005. Goods imported herein have been done by a Bill of Entry filed on 27.04.2004. This being the case, they cannot be confiscated for want of a specific import licence and accordingly, the provisions of section 111 (d) will not be applicable in this matter. - The interests of justice woul....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 719 - TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Customs Versus Gayatri Timbers Private Limited
SAD Refund - N/N. 102/2007-Customs issued on 14-09-2007 - denial on the ground that the timber logs imported by the respondent-assessee were not sold as such by them, but were sold locally after sawning them and cutting them into smaller sizes and also on the ground that the logs cut into smaller sizes could not correlate to the items described in the import packing list - Section 130 A of the Customs Act - The grievance of the appellant/revenue ....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 718 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rakesh Rathi, Partner of M/s. S.G. Sales Corporation, Nirmal Kumar Rathi, M/s. Laminate Distributors (India) , Shri S. Gopal Rathi, M/s. S.G. Sales Corporation Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Pre-deposit - demand of 50 of pre-deposit - Misdeclaration of imported goods - under-declaration - the case of the respondent-revenue is that the goods imported were under declared and custom duty was paid on declared value. The amount corresponding to the declared value was being paid to the supplier through normal banking channels. It is alleged that the additional amount being the difference between the actual transaction value and the declare....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 717 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Ganesh Food Products Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax
Classification of imported goods - probat Roasting unit Model I-P from M/s. Probat-Weke, Germany - to be classified under CTH 85167990 or under CTH 841981.90? - N/N. 21/2002 dt. 01/03/2002 - Held that - the Commissioner(Appeal) has held that the same cannot be considered as electro thermic appliances and therefore cannot be classified under the heading 8516 and accordingly he classified the impugned goods under Chapter 8419 - there are no infirmi....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 716 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s. Parisons Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, Cochin
Classification of imported goods - crude palm oil - to be classified under CTH 1511000 or under heading 15119090 - N/N. 21/2002 - Held that - the test on the samples taken were conducted after more than 10 days of the drawing of the samples and further we do not have the evidence to the fact that the sample of the goods were stored in ideal condition - also, the basis of various scientific data that the beta carotenoid content in crude palm oil d....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 715 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, Mangalore
Penalty u/s 114 of CA, 1962 - mis-declaration - export of iron ore having Fe content above 64 - the exporter has declared the Fe content of the goods covered under the shipping bill is less than 64 - Held that - in the present case, when shipping bills were filed, the Fe content, as per the Certificate of Quality issued by accredited laboratory, was less than 64 in the consignment and when the same was tested by the Chemical Examiner of the Custo....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 714 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Commissioner of Customs (Port-Import) Chennai-I Versus M/s. Omni Agate Systems
Classification of imported goods - ILP 45 Professional LCG Monitors of Sharp brand - importers classified the goods under CTH 85285100 - The department was of the view that the goods would fall under CTH 85285900 - Whether it is a Computer monitor or a TV/ Video monitor? - Held that - as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken assistance of the Board Circular, dated 10.09.2007. A Computer cha....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 713 - CESTAT CHENNAI
M/s. Vidhi Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Confiscation - penalty - import of Irony Aluminium Scrap - it was alleged that the importer attempted to import hazardons plastic and other waste materials by mis-declaring the cargo as Irony Aluminium scrap, thereby violating the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Held that - as per the report of the TNPCB some extraneous plastic items were found in the consignment. There is nothing in the said report to reflect upon the quantu....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 712 - CESTAT CHENNAI
M/s. Pannalal Mahesh Chandra Jewellers Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Condonation of delay of 1010 days in filing appeal - case of appellant is that after receipt of the impugned order the same was misplaced in their office in Kanpur and though efforts were made to file the appeals, it did not fructify and thus there was omission in filing appeals within time - Held that - In many judgements, the Hon ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts, has held that in every case of delay there may be some lapse on the p....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 711 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. Ingram Micro (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Benefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - import of combo drives - demand of CVD, cess and additional import duty - Held that - there are no reference in the vast literature available in the public domain on the internet that a combo drive would have to contain of microprocessor or USB flash memory or for that matter a floppy disc drive or hard disc drive. It appears to be absurd to suggest that a combo drive should contain a microprocessor and ....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 674 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
India Steel Industries, Shri H.B. Gupta of Bombay Versus Union of India, The Asstt. Collector of Customs Drawback Department, The Collector of Customs (Judicial)
Classification of goods - Stainless Steel Articles - Duty Drawback - whether the Stainless Steel Bright Bars of Austenitic Variety is classifiable as Bright Steel Bars for the purpose of drawback schedule under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1972? - whether the same will go under sub serial No.3606 or 3803 of schedule F of the Rules? - Held that - Stainless Steel Bright Bars of Austenitic Variety had been treated in a manne....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 673 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M/s. Apar Limited, Himatlal Narottam Shah Versus Union of India, The Collector of Customs, The Assistant Collector of Customs
Additional Duty of Customs - interpretation of statute - subsection (1) of section 3 of the CTA Act, 1975 - transformer oil - case of petitioner is that the transformer oil has been exempted under the N/N. 5/84 C.E. dated 1st March 1984 and, therefore, the additional duty under subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act of 1975 is not payable - Held that - The Apex Court had an occasion to interpret subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act of....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 672 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Customs Versus Jindal Drugs Ltd.
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - duty paid and duty benefit claimed under the notification dated 19th May 2002 for import of goods under advance licences dated 23rd January 1995 and for import of goods under advance licences dated 7th February 1995 - denial of refund on the ground that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing documents as set out in clause 9 - Held that - no statutory provision or a provision o....... + More
