Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2016 2016 2016 (9) Customs - 2016 (9) 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 1 to 20 of 181 Records

• 2016 (9) TMI 1622 - SC ORDER
  

  Proper officer - Juridiction to issue Show Cause Notice - Constitutional validity and effect of Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and permission to file lengthy list of dates granted.

  There shall be a stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1585 - SC ORDER
  

  Classification - LCD Panel - Whether to be classified under Tariff Item 9013 8010 of the Customs Tariff Act and is entitled for the benefit of BCD exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 or under Tariff Item 8529 9090? - it was held by CESTAT that LCD's are more specifically covered under 9013 80 10 vis-`-vis their general coverage under CTH 8529.

  HELD THAT:- Issue Notice - Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 6518-6538 of 2016.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1580 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Violation of principles of Natural Justice - request for cross examination of various deponents of the statements which were relied upon in the show cause notice, is denied - HELD THAT:- Reasoning's adopted by the adjudicating authority in the present matter that cross examination cannot be permitted because the deponents of various statements are either co-noticee or employees of the assessees or relative of the assessee is not appreciable. In case the Revenue reliance is relatable to the said statements, their examination in chief is required to be conducted and thereafter cross examination is to be allowed.

  The adjudicating authority is directed to allow the cross examination of the persons whose statements Revenue authorities intend to rely upon - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1553 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Interest on refund - Sections 27 and 27(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - applications are now pending consideration before the second respondent - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the request is still pending before the second respondent it would be appropriate for the second respondent to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law.

  These writ petitions stand disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application for payment of interest and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1533 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Grant of interim stay - furnishing of Bank Guarantee - HELD THAT:- While adjourning the writ appeal by two weeks, this Court, vide order dated 26.02.2016, granted interim stay of the order impugned. In addition, this Court has further ordered that the respondent shall not withhold the certificate required for import of the product, on condition that the appellant furnishes Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rupees One Crore. Bank Guarantee directed, has been offered. Record of proceedings further shows that stay granted is not restricted and it continues to operate even today.

  The writ appeal is admitted - Post after two weeks for filing additional counter.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1518 - SC ORDER
  

  Misuse of advance licence/advance authorisation scheme - proper officers - undue haste in issuance of show cause notice - HELD THAT:- Issue notice on the special leave petitions as well as on the prayer for interim relief returnable in two weeks.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1464 - SC ORDER
  

  Proper officer - Jurisdiction to issue Show Cause Notice - Constitutional validity and effect of Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- There shall be a stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1455 - SC ORDER
  

  Restoration of petition - refund claim - Held that:- Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the Assistant Commissioner has already taken a decision. The decision be not given effect to for the time being - List the matter after pleadings are complete.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1417 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Principles of natural justice - appellants submits that the similar issue is pending before the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Petition No.C-3726/2015 and CM No.6651/2015, where the principle of natural justice was taken against the order passed by the Designated Authority - Held that: - the liberty is granted to the appellant to come again after having final verdict from the Hon’ble High Court, if need be within the prescribed time - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1416 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Benefit of N/N. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-1997 - import of Computer Software - Held that: - there are no debarring provision incorporated in that notification to prohibit telecom, medical and other systems to be ineligible to get the exemption benefit when a software is imported to make the system functional - appellant is entitled to the grant of notification that has not prohibited it to get the benefit thereof - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1409 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - import of toner cartridge nut declared as ink cartridge to avail the benefit of notification - Held that: - There was import of toner cartridge by the appellant under 12 bill of entries beginning from 7-5-2004 till 5-8-2004. During this period, the N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 has undergone amendment. N/N. 66/2004-Cus., 9-7-2004 granted benefit of duty concession to ink cartridge at the relevant point of time of import but not to toner cartridge - while issuing N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 legislature had not intended to cover toner cartridges under ink cartridges - appellant fails to succeed - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1408 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  DEPB credit - export of cotton knitted T-shirts round neck - enhancemnet of declared FOB - Held that: - it is not disputed that the goods which were exported are cotton T-shirts knitted round neck. It is also not disputed that the said T-shirts were of good quality and the declared quantity was also found to be correct - the adjudicating authority was correct in accepting the declared FOB value as correct. The First Appellate Authority has not considered the issue in a proper perspective and in a routine manner, set aside the impugned order - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1407 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Extension of time for re-export of goods - goods re-imported for reprocessing, etc. - N/N. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995 - Held that: - The N/N. 158/95-Cus. allows the normal period of 6 months for re-export and also empowers Commissioner of Customs to allow re-export within extended period not exceeding a further period for 6 months - We are not able to comprehend that when the fact of re-export of the goods is not in dispute how the duty of customs on the goods which have already been exported could be confirmed. The facts on record indicate that there have been circumstances like frequent electricity cut leading to delay in re-export of the goods which is beyond the permissible period of 6 months.

  The Commissioner of Customs is directed to reconsider the matter leniently to grant ex post facto permission for re-export within the further period of 6 months in terms of N/N. 158/95-Cus. - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1401 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Monetary limit of amount involved in appeal - Held that: - As the amounts in dispute are less than prescribed, we dismiss these appeals under litigation policy, without entering into merits of the case - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1387 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Penalty u/s 114(i) and 114(iii) of the CA - denial on DEPB Benefit - inflated FOB value - rejection of declared value - Held that: - the Revenue is willing to accept a FOB price up to 50% higher than the AR-4 price without market enquiry. In case of declared FOB value being more 150% it mandates a market enquiry - In the instant case no market enquiry has been conducted. In the absence of any market enquiry the declared FOB value cannot be rejected - Revenue has also not produced any evidence of contemporary exports while the appellants have produced the bank realization certificate for the entire declared FOB - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1383 - SC ORDER
  

  Penalty - non-performance/non-compliance of Past Performance Entitlement - the decision in the case of Eveline International Versus Union of India [2014 (9) TMI 1134 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that to enable the appellant to succeed on the said plea, it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish that the shortfall was only in quota items of US 338 and not in other quota of different countries code but which the appellant had failed to do and thus the said plea could not be believed - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1370 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Refund of SAD - time limitation - Held that: - where the payment of Special Additional Due (SAD) and refund was involved, statutory interdicts could not be varied or altered by mere executive instructions and circulars - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1350 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Export of black pepper oleoresins and black pepper oil manufactured out of the imported pepper - As per the conditions stipulated under the Authorization, the petitioner was under obligation to export black pepper oleoresins and black pepper oil manufactured out of the imported pepper within a period of four months from the date of such import - the petitioner sought for relaxation of time for export - whether the Committee has considered the claim for relaxation in a proper perspective or not? - Held that: - It is apparent from the facts on record that when the Committee had with due application of mind extended the period by four months for complying with the Export Obligation, I do not think that this Court should sit in judgment over the said opinion expressed by the Committee unless there is any patent illegality or perversity in the said direction - The Committee was sure about two facts. One is that there is a specific reason for limiting the period to comply with the Export Obligation and the time can be extended if there is genuine hardship being caused. Merely for the reason that the buyer had delayed the shipment cannot be a genuine reason at all - It is not in dispute that if there is non-compliance of Export Obligation, the DGFT has the power to place the petitioner and its Directors under th`e DEL order. Since the said orders had been passed during the pendency of WP (C) Nos. 5752/2016 and 5728/2016, I am of the view that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to show cause to avoid the DEL order dated 26-5-2016.

  The petitioner shall file objection to the show cause notice issued against them within 4 weeks and the matter shall be heard afresh by the competent authority after giving an opportunity to the petitioner - matter on remand.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1346 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Constitutional validity of Section 129E of the Customs Act - withdrawal of petition - Held that: - it is clarified that while permitting the applicant herein - original petitioner to withdraw the main Special Civil Application with above liberty, we have not specifically restrained the petitioner from challenging the Order-in-Original by preferring the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - it is for the concerned Court to consider whether despite the statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority challenging the Order-in-Original, still the Court would like to entertain Special Civil Application in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not and/or the petitioner may be relegated to avail alternative statutory remedy available under the Act - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2016 (9) TMI 1342 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Non-service of the intimation for appearance - principles of Natural justice - Held that: - There is no doubt at all that the order dt. 26.6.2015 was passed by Tribunal exparte in absence of appellant who makes the above grievance for non-service of the intimation for appearance - Registry is directed to record restoration of appeal in its register for issuance of notice in due course, for hearing of appeal - appeal restored.

  ---

12345........ 10