|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 70 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1203
... ...
... ... ..... er would like to approach the High Court for appropriate orders. The special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed. SLP (C) ………....CC9128/2010 Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1149
... ...
... ... ..... cision but also the decision making process is not in accordance with the law since the Settlement Commission has not followed the provisions of Rule 5(3) of the Valuation Rules which are part of the Act. 29. Under the circumstances, we hold that the orders dated 2nd August, 2001 and 4th December, 2001 passed by the Settlement Commission are ex facie arbitrary and perverse, inasmuch as the settlement of the case in relation to the duty liability is not in accordance with law. The orders passed by the Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2001 and 4th December, 2001 to the extent that the Settlement Commission has settled the case in respect of 7 shipments for the amount of ₹ 23,01,077/ instead of ₹ 3 lacs is set aside. The question whether the Settlement Commission has power to entertain the rectification application is left open as not pressed. Order accordingly. 30. Writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1148
... ...
... ... ..... he exemption from the date of first notification. This is precisely what the learned single judge held, and therefore the impugned order is strictly in accordance with law and hence, we do not find any justification to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned single judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the duty has already been paid, learned single judge permitted the petitioners to file an application for refund within four weeks. On account of this appeal and the stay order, the petitioners have not availed the benefit yet. Therefore, he requests four weeks’ time to file the application for refund from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The petitioner is permitted to file the requisite application for refund within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the authorities are directed to pass appropriate order expeditiously. No costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1141
... ...
... ... ..... sion but also the decision making process is not in accordance with the law since the Settlement Commission has not followed the provisions of Rule 5(3) of the Valuation Rules which are part of the Act. 29. Under the circumstances, we hold that the orders dated 2nd August, 2001 and 4th December, 2001 passed by the Settlement Commission are ex facie arbitrary and perverse, inasmuch as the settlement of the case in relation to the duty liability is not in accordance with law. The orders passed by the Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2001 and 4th December, 2001 to the extent that the Settlement Commission has settled the case in respect of 11 shipments for the amount of ₹ 21,35,879/ instead of ₹ 6 lacs are set aside. The question whether the Settlement Commission has power to entertain the rectification application is left open as not pressed. Order accordingly. 30. Writ Petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... reported in 2008 (306) ITR 0403 Dr. C.M.K. Reddy v. Settlement Commission (IT/WT) under Section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 18. Applying the above cited judgments to the facts of this case and as the petitioner is not willing to pay the amount arrived at by the Settlement Commission and disputing the same even though he has not made full and true disclosure in the settlement application, the first respondent cannot be directed by this Court to accept the settlement or go into the claim, which is in dispute. In the impugned order itself it is stated that the Revenue should take up the adjudication as if no application has been filed for settlement. There is no perversity in the said order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. The writ petition is dismissed. The Revenue is directed to finalise the adjudication proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... ts 1. D.R. Polymers Ltd. Vs. CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi 2004 (166) ELT 393 (Tri. Del.) 2. Narayan International Vs. Collector of Customs 1992 (58) ELT 126 (Tribunal) 3. Vintel Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (SEA), Chennai 2002 (149) ELT 145 (Tri. Chennai) 4. Elite Packaging Industries Vs. Collector of Cus. & C.EX. 1992 (60) ELT 311 (Tribunal) 5. Do Best Infoway Vs. CCE, Amritsar 2004 (166) ELT 424 (Tri. Del.) 7. Apart from above, we note that there is absolutely no evidence available on record showing that any extra money has flowed back to the supplier. Invoice is the only document on record reflecting the transaction value and in the absence of any evidence to doubt or establish the falsity of the value declared in the invoice, the same has to be accepted as the transaction value. We accordingly find no reasons to uphold the impugned order. The same is accordingly set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 1098
... ...
... ... ..... rt in CC Vs. Indian Oil Corporation 2004 (165) ELT 257 (SC). Following the ratio of the apex Court s decision cited supra, I set aside the inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value of the assessee s goods and allow the appeal. The differential duty as a result of calculating the C&F price at 48.27 US per MT as against the declared C&F price of 44.71 US per MT is upheld as it is not the subject matter in the present appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 1052
... ...
... ... ..... coming prohibited on account of breach of the provisions of the Act, rules or notification, to order confiscation of the goods with a discretion in the authorities on passing the order of confiscation, to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. Such an order can only be passed if the goods are available, for redemption. The question of confiscating the goods would not arise if there are no goods available for confiscation nor consequently redemption. Once goods cannot be redeemed no fine can be imposed. The fine is in the nature of compensation to the state for the wrong done by the importer/exporter. 4. So far as waiver of fine on CHA and Exporter and reduction of penalty on the Steamer Company are concerned, the reasons recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved. All the appeals are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1005
Refund claim - excess customs duty paid - CBEC Circular dt. 10/11/2008 - claim of assessee is that the customs authorities have wrongly assessed the export cargo at higher value and had collected excess export duty based on valuation on FOB value- denial of refund claim on the ground that the shipping bills which were assessed with remarks are provisional and not finally assessed and there is no need to file separate appeal against the order of assessment and it could be corrected under Section 154 of the CA, 1962 - scope of section 154 of CA, 1962.
Held that: - the issue is now squarely covered by our decision in the case of M/s. Sameera Trading Company, [2010 (5) TMI 518 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where it was ditected the assessing officer to reassess the Bill of Entry under Section 17(4) of the Act after allowing the assessee to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Act - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 992
N/N 66/2008-Cus, dated 14.05.2008- Whether export duty can be levied on goods supplied from Domestic Tariff Area to Special Economic Zone? - the decision in the case of Essar Steel Ltd. Versus Union of India [2009 (11) TMI 141 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that levy of export duty on goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to the Special Economic Zone is not justified - Held that: - there is no merit in the present appeal and is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 979
Import of various types of bearings - denial of benefit of N/N. 40/2006-Cus., - According to the Revenue, a co-relation of technical characteristics, quality and specification is required to be established in respect of bearings sought to be imported that the bearings were actually used in the resultant product - Whether the Tribunal is justified in granting the benefit of N/N. 40/2006-Cus., when the Respondent failed to satisfy the conditions of the Notification as well as para 4.55.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy? - Held that: - specifications provided in the DFIA authorisation have to be considered as sufficient for the customs purposes since the specifications are based on goods exported under a shipping bill. Therefore the responsibility to ensure that exporter gives a proper declaration while making exports in the shipping bill lies on both customs as well as DGFT authorities and having missed the bus at the time of export, it may not be correct to insist on specifications from a transferee of DIFA - Revenue was unable to point out from any of the documents available on record that the import was not in accordance with the licence conditions or the specifications provided therein - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2010 (7) TMI 976
... ...
... ... ..... , accordingly, dismiss this petition keeping the question of law open for decision in some other matter.
-
2010 (7) TMI 956
... ...
... ... ..... only duty and did not pay any amount of interest thereon. Even today, the interest remains unpaid. In this scenario, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. The Hon’ble High Courts’ decisions cited by the learned counsel are not applicable in the instant case because, in those cases, the question whether the assessee had paid interest on duty was not examined. In the result, it is held that the appellant is liable to penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Act as also to pay interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Act for the period of delay in payment of duty. However, we have not found valid reason for imposing any penalty on the appellant under Rule 209 or Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The relief prayed for against these penalties is, therefore, granted. With these modifications, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is disposed of. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 955
... ...
... ... ..... above reproduced table that the total value comes to ₹ 55,350/-. The appellant is liable to discharge the duty liability on the goods as was done during the relevant period. 7. Since I have already held that these goods are notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, they are liable for confiscation and penalty is also imposable on the goods. I find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the Adjudicating Authority, in the original proceedings, had imposed only 20% of the value of the goods as fine and penalty. Maintaining the same, I hold that the above referred goods are confiscated and appellants are given an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 7,000/-. The appellants are also liable for penalty of ₹ 4,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Subject to such modification, the appeal is allowed partly as indicated herein above. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... e equated with the availment and in turn it cannot be termed as misdeclaration merely on the premise that they have claimed the benefit. The Tribunal in the case of J.K. Industries Ltd., (supra) held that as there was no misdeclaration of the goods. Therefore, I find that the confiscation of the goods in question is not sustainable in law. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has absolved the importer from penalty and department has not challenged the same. Once the penalty upon the importer is set aside there is no justification in imposing penalty on the CHA, since the department has not brought out anything to show that CHA was working for availing the benefits of the exemption notification solely for his own interest and could get away with the benefits in case the same would have been extended and gone un-noticed. Therefore, I set aside the penalty on the CHA. In view of the above, Commissioner (A) s impugned order is set aside, and the appeals are allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 861
... ...
... ... ..... lso note that the adjudicating authority has referred to the letter written by the assessee which stands received by the department on 22-11-93, wherein they have accepted the fact of receipt of notice without making any reference to the actual date of receipt. They have also not taken the plea of time bar in the above referred letter. It is the appellant who is contending that the notice was not received by them before 14-11-93 and as such the onus also lies upon them to show that such notice was actually not received by them on or before 14-11-93. Their reply dt. 22-11-93 makes it clear that the same was received before the said date. Their register produced on record also nowhere shows actual date of receipt. 10. In view of our forgoing discussion, we do not find any merits in the appellant rsquo s contention of the demand being barred by limitation. As the merits have not been contested, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Pronounced in Court on 7-7-2010)
-
2010 (7) TMI 851
... ...
... ... ..... l has also referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court rsquo s judgment in Bhagwan Devi Banka and Others v. R.B. Sinha and Others - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 890 (Pat.), wherein it was held that duty recoverable from a person, who was no more, was recoverable from his legal representative to the extent of property of deceased coming to the hands of the legal representative. The learned Counsel submits that, as no property of the deceased husband has come to the appellant rsquo s hands, nothing is recoverable from her towards the duty liability of the deceased. It is in this context that the learned Counsel has banked on the appellant rsquo s affidavit. 5. We have heard the learned Jt. CDR and have also noted that no ldquo Counter rdquo so far has been filed vis-a-vis the aforesaid affidavit filed by the deceased rsquo s wife. In this scenario, we have no option but to grant waiver and stay of recovery in respect of the duty amount as well. It is ordered accordingly. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 850
... ...
... ... ..... oods. Commissioner (Appeals) noting the above sequence of events and noting the fact that the goods are material objects in the police case has set aside the order of confiscation. 5. Learned Advocate submits that one of the accomplish Shri Badri Prasad has been convicted for burglary under Section 411 of IPC. The offence, if any, relating to the goods under Customs Act is neither with the knowledge nor with any intention on the part of owner of the goods and therefore, he seeks upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. No doubt that there was attempt to export the impugned goods illegally. But the owner of the goods is only a victim of burglary/theft. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the leniency shown by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondent deserves to be appreciated and upheld. No valid grounds have been adduced for interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The appeal of the department is rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 848
... ...
... ... ..... reasoning, it has been held that the duty on the subject goods cannot be sustained. When the order has been drafted, a mistake has crept in and instead of setting aside the duty demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- the amount shown in the order in Para 6 last line is Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is very clear this is a typographical mistake and there is no reason for the revenue to demand the remaining Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore ignoring the technicalities and notwithstanding the delay in filing the ROM application, we allow the same and we confirm that the amount to be set aside is only Rs. 15,00,000/- and not Rs. 5,00,000/- as mentioned in Para 6 of the order. Therefore, we allow the ROM. rdquo 6. I find that the facts of the present application are identical. Accordingly, following the decision cited, the miscellaneous application is allowed. The date 7-11-2007 appearing in the last but one sentence of the Final Order will now read as lsquo 7-11-2006 rsquo . (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
|
