Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 118 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 1366
... ... ... ... ..... lam, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1331
... ... ... ... ..... y hearing may be granted. 2. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter twice to the original authority. The goods are lying with the Departments custody since 2013. 3. In view of the above, we direct the original authority to re-examine the matter as per the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of four weeks from today. The learned counsel for the assessee will submit the copy of this order to the original authority within a period of one week. With these observations, the appeal as well as the application for early hearing stand disposed of.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1325
... ... ... ... ..... y relevant or partly irrelevant evidence and is otherwise perverse and arbitrary.” 2. To be heard along with Customs Appeal No. 54 of 2009 which was admitted on 7th July, 2009. Appellants to serve the respondents within eight weeks from today, failing which appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1306
... ... ... ... ..... am, JJ. ORDER Appeal Dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1305
... ... ... ... ..... ire amount of ₹ 67,56,033/- and appellant M/s. Raj International to deposit the amount of ₹ 1,00,05,250/- within four weeks from today and make compliance on 30th July, 2009. In the result, both the stay applications are rejected.” 3. We find from the above that the Tribunal has formed a prima facie view and on that basis the aforesaid order has been passed. The Tribunal, thus, took into consideration all relevant facts, including the interest of the revenue, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. (supra). 4. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid order in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It goes without saying that at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal shall consider the submissions made by both the parties without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. The petitions are, otherwise, dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1296
... ... ... ... ..... law up to 12/07/2006. Further placed the reliance on the decision in the case of CC Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., (2009 (91) RLT 255 (CESTAT-LB) 2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri-LB) wherein it was held that prior to 13/07/2006, refund, which became due on final assessment is to be made without the claim being submitted by the assessee and, therefore, did not attract the provisions of unjust enrichment. 9. Heard. 10. On perusal of the record, I find that this case pertains to period prior to 13/07/2006. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable at that time and the amended provisions of Section 18 were applicable only from 13/07/2006. 11. In view of the above discussion, I hold that prior to 13/07/2006, the appellant is entitled for the refund on finalization of provisional assessment without the claim being submitted by the appellant and the refund is not attracted by the provisions of unjust enrichment. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1287
... ... ... ... ..... that an order relating to renewal of CHA licence is administrative in nature and not a quasi-judicial order against which an appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that appeal does not lie before the Tribunal following the judgment of the Honble Calcutta High Court in M. Dutta Agency Vs. Commissioner 1998 (1) LCX 77 and Tribunals decision in P. Cawasji and Co. 2000 (119) ELT 606 and G.P. Jaiswal 2008 (226) ELT 707. The Tribunals order in A.S. Vasan & Sons cited supra has been upheld by the Bombay High Court as seen from 2009 (238) ELT 217. 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions and also following the ratio of the Tribunals order in Tass Clearing Services P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2009 (238) ELT 671, I reject the appeal of the Revenue as not maintainable before the Tribunal. 4. Cross-objection is dismissed as it is only in the nature of comments on/reply to the Revenues appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1286
Smuggling - sugar - Case of the Revenue is that the sugar is being stored near the Bangladesh Border and it is for smuggling to Bangladesh and it is well known fact that there has been regular smuggling of sugar through this area - Held that: - no evidence whatsoever has been adduced to show that the confiscated sugar was being attempted for illegal export. The sugar was merely stored in godown and storing is not synonymous with attempts to illegal export to Bangladesh. In view of these facts and as there is no evidence on record that the sugar is being smuggled to Bangladesh - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1278
... ... ... ... ..... silver gears or that he was involved with him; the petitioner was only a proprietor of the courier company and goods were recovered duly packed; the petitioner had agreed for some extra payment only, to generate an invoice; the respondent has been unable to show that the petitioner may commit any offence, if bail is granted to him, I consider this to be a fit case for grant of bail inasmuch as, the parameters of section 37 of the NDPS Act are fully met. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that (i) petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or contact or influence any witness; (ii) the petitioner shall surrender his pass-port (if any), before the concerned court; and (iii) the petitioner shall not leave this country without prior permission of the concerned court. 13. Application stands disposed of. DASTI.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1272
... ... ... ... ..... plea of being not guilty in this case, advanced by the CHA M/s. Vaz Forwarding Ltd., their Director Shri Winstor Gregor Vaz and their representative Shri Suresh Yadav is not acceptable." 4. As is seen from the above, there is no direct evidence on record to show that the said appellants were aware of the fact of the advance licences being bogus and forged. There may be some contravention as regards following procedure envisaged in the Customs House Licensing Rules, but there is virtually no evidence to show any knowledge on the part of the appellant about the forged advance licences. Even the officers cleared the goods against said licences and it is only subsequently on investigation that these licences were found to be forged and bogus. Under these circumstances, I find no justifiable reason to impose the penalties imposed upon the appellants. The same are, accordingly, set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief to them. Pronounced in Court on 27.7.2009.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1246
Whether the High Court correct to upheld the order of conviction passed against the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of ₹ 1 lac, and in default of payment of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of two years, for having found in possession of 2 bags containing 61 Kgs. of poppy husk, without any permit or licence?
-
2009 (7) TMI 1232
Valuation Customs - Second-hand photocopier machines imported - decision in the case of NEW COPIER SYNDICATE Versus COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & ST. (A), HYDERABAD [2008 (10) TMI 533 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that the revenue cannot reject the transaction value and proceed to determine the value under provisions of Rule 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - present appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1227
... ... ... ... ..... y condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1225
... ... ... ... ..... iled in the Bombay High Court. 4. In our view, such a writ petition ought to have been filed by the Department before the Delhi High Court. The Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to decide upon the validity of the Order passed by Settlement Commission, New Delhi. In fact the respondent herein had instituted a Petition being Writ Petition No. 15836 of 2006 in the Delhi High Court on a collateral issue, which stands disposed of. Hence, in our view, Department had chosen a wrong forum. 5. In the circumstance, if so advised, it is open to the Department to move the Delhi High Court against the order dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission. We make it clear that in case the Department moves the Delhi High Court against the Order dated June 30, 2006, observations made by the Bombay High Court in para 3 will not be taken into account. We express no opinion on merits. 6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1223
Detention of person - territorial jurisdiction - Maintainability of petition - Held that: - even if we are to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction from the standpoint of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, this Court would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition - whether the present case is viewed from the standpoint of Article 226(1) or from the standpoint of Article 226(2), this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
Validity of detention order - the retraction letter of Kiran Vora dated 28.02.2001 had not been placed/ considered by the detaining authority - case of petitioner is also that the detention order has lost its relevance due to efflux of time - Held that: - the detention order in the present case has lost its relevance through the combined effect of passage of time and lack of any evidence of any prejudicial activity on the part of the proposed detenu (Mukesh Vora) - the fact that this writ petition is maintainable even at the pre-execution stage coupled with the fact that in the passage of over eight years since the passing of the detention order, there is no evidence on record of any prejudicial activity on the part of the proposed detenu Mr Mukesh Vora, in itself is sufficient for us to conclude that the detention order has lost its relevance today.
The detention order be cancelled - petition allowed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1212
... ... ... ... ..... ry was assessed by the proper officer and appropriate duty as per assessment order was paid. The assessment Order was not challenged by the Respondents. In the decisions relied upon by the Revenue as noted above, after taking into consideration the decision of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries (supra) it is held that in absence of challenge to the assessment Order the refund is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Karan Associates (supra) held that in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. the matter was remanded to the adjudicating Authority to consider the application of importer regarding re-classification of the goods. Therefore the ratio of the above decision is not applicable in a case where without challenging the assessment order the refund was filed. In view of the above I find merit in the contention of the Revenue. The impugned order is set aside and Appeal is allowed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1144
Whether compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”) is mandatory and failure to take down the information in writing and forthwith send a report to his immediate official superior would cause prejudice to the accused?
Held that:- The compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. Let the appeals be now placed for disposal before the appropriate Bench.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1138
... ... ... ... ..... s Tariff Act, 1975, statutory mandate is that there should be a Notification in respect of concerned goods. In absence of Notification, invoking of Section 9 for the present case is inconceivable. Therefore, the case is only governed by Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. None present for the respondent. Having looked into the records and guided by Revenue rsquo s submission aforesaid, we are not inclined to order for sustaining the first appellate directions. Accordingly, we restore the Order-in-Original allowing the appeal of Revenue setting aside the appellate order. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1131
... ... ... ... ..... . It appears, no such safeguards were taken in the present case. This, however, would not detract from the penal liability otherwise fastened to the importer by virtue of the operation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Where the charge is abetment, the department has a burden to show that the person who allegedly abetted the offence committed by the importer did something or omitted to do something with intent to enable the importer to escape penal liability arising out of the import in breach of prohibition/restriction. In the instant case, I do not find any such evidence. Consequently, the penalties on the CHA and the broker cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, it is ordered as under - (a) The redemption fine is set aside. (b) The penalty on the importer is sustained in the facts and circumstances of this case to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. (c) The penalties on the broker and the CHA are vacated. (d) The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1130
Confiscation - Buff upper finished leather - penalty - Held that: - Since there is no intention to export prohibited goods and the goods have been only allowed to be taken back for re-processing, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is accordingly upheld - confiscation and penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
........
|