Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2020 2020 2020 (2) Customs - 2020 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 161 to 162 of 162 Records

• 2020 (2) TMI 7 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Relinquishment of title to the goods lying uncleared - non-disposal of the claim of appellant, in relation to the goods already cleared, for relinquishment, and refund, under section 26A of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It was not open to the first appellate authority to revisit a decision taken in favour of appellant save on appeal authorised by Commissioner of Customs. That apparently has not occurred yet. Moreover, proviso to section 128(3) of Customs Act, 1962 empowers the issue of show cause notice only for enhancing penalty or any other detriment or for rejection of refund sanctioned by the original authority. Proceedings that lie before the original authority can be initiated only under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 or under section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 – neither of these envisages Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as the ‘proper officer’. Consequently, the notice contemplated by proviso to section 128(3) of Customs Act, 1962 is limited to enhancement or reduction, as the case may be, within the confines of the notice that commenced proceedings leading to the appeal.

  The extent of enhancement or reduction was limited to such as were proposed in the original notice; there is no empowerment in section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 for a new proceedings or cause of action. Such would also not constitute an enhancement and, therefore, the issue of show cause notice leading to the specific direction in the impugned order is beyond the pale of law.

  Relinquishment of title to the goods is not permissible to goods that have already been cleared. Consequently, the claim for refund of section 26A is limited only to such as those which were uncleared and acknowledged as relinquished - There is no flaw in non-consideration of the claim in relation to the goods cleared by appellant - Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (2) TMI 1 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Application for early hearing of appeal - HELD THAT:- On going through the submissions made in the said application, we are of the view that this is a fit case for consideration of the prayer in support of early hearing of appeal. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application is considered.

  Registry is directed to list the appeal for final hearing on 10.01.2020.

  ---

1 ....56789