|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 65 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... vision Bench seeking permission to withdraw the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed as not pressed. We direct that if the petitioners take steps for withdrawal of the appeal before the next date fixed by the Division Bench, the contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall remain stayed till the said application is disposed of.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1046
... ...
... ... ..... deposit an amount of ₹ 3 lakhs within eight weeks from today. On such deposit of abovementioned amount, the pre-deposit of remaining amount of penalty is waived and the recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. In respect of other applicants, we find that Shilpesh Sawant and Shri Sandeep Naik are working with the LC holder of the firm. The case of the Revenue is that they are actually working under the direction of Shri Mehra. As we find prima facie there is no evidence on record their omission or commission in respect of any violation to the Customs Act, the pre-deposit of penalties are waived for hearing of the appeals, the same is in the case of H.P. Joshi & Co., Shri Ashwin K. Joshi and Shri Kantilal H. Joshi, as no investigation was conducted from them, even no statement was recorded. Therefore, the pre-deposit of penalty on these applicants are also waived for hearing of the appeals. Compliance to be reported on 12-8-2011. (Dictated in Court)
-
2011 (5) TMI 1045
... ...
... ... ..... a fit case for our interference with the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (as it then existed) in Appeal No. C/R-76/2001 and other connected appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, keeping open the questions of law sought to be raised in these appeals, with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1021
... ...
... ... ..... e to withdraw the petition stating that the petitioner shall file appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as undertaken before the High Court, raising all the points, which were sought to be raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
-
2011 (5) TMI 941
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioners have no right to insist on presence of the advocate at the time of interrogation. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having perused the documents on record, in peculiar facts of the case when we find that there are allegations and counter-allegations, to avoid any controversy and to ensure that there are no further allegations of ill-treatment by the respondents, it would be appropriate to permit the presence of the advocate of petitioner No.2 when he is being interrogated by the Revenue authorities. It is, however, clarified that the advocate may remain within sight but not within the hearing range. It is further clarified that we shall not be taken to have accepted the allegation of the petitioner of any ill-treatment. The petitioners are directed to co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner No.2 shall make himself available for further interrogation forthwith without further delay. 7. With above direction petition is disposed of.
-
2011 (5) TMI 923
Challenge to setting aside of conviction of Respondent - mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has not been complied.
-
2011 (5) TMI 919
... ...
... ... ..... plinary enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Annex A-1) is quashed and set aside . The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while allowing OA of Shri S.N. Ojha. 6. From above, it is clear that the present case is fully covered because here also the incident related to December, 1998. Show cause notice was given to the applicant on 23.12.1999. The Commissioner exonerated the applicant under Customs Act in August, 2003 by observing departmental enquiry should be initiated against him yet no action was taken. The only ground taken by the respondents is that departmental enquiry has been initiated on the advice of CVC but when was the advice given has also not been explained. We, therefore, hold respondents have not been able to explain the delay in initiating departmental enquiry against the applicant. 7. We, therefore, quash the charge sheet dated 18.11.2010 on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The OA is allowed. No costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 918
Confiscation - Notification 44/2002 dated 19-4-2002- Capital Goods imported under EPCG Scheme at concessional rate and later on sale it or not used for said function - Concessional rate of duty at 5% on capital goods imported under valid license issued under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme - customs department later found that the respondent notified cars for sale in complete violation of the conditions on which respondent was allowed to import cars at concessional rate of 5% as against 160% payable.
-
2011 (5) TMI 910
Modification of impugned order - Confiscation - Misdeclaration - it was submitted that Supplementary Vegetable Tanning Agents, are allowed to be imported on actual user condition and that the petitioner not being an actual user, is even otherwise not entitled to import the said goods under the DFIA Schenne.
-
2011 (5) TMI 883
Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from perversity in the matter of reduction of penalty as regards the appellants?
Held that:- While it is true that there is no elaborate discussion in the impugned order of the Tribunal regarding the quantum of penalty and the proportion in which the same is reduced, in the background of the facts stated hereinabove, it cannot be said that impugned the quantum of penalty upheld by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity.
Insofar as the reduction of penalty in the case of M/s. BSL is concerned, the Tribunal has reduced the same to a large extent after recording specific findings as regards the extent of their involvement and as such, it is not possible to state that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any perversity in the matter of reduction of penalty as is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 882
... ...
... ... ..... under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act are beyond the scope of show cause notice. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. 5. It appears from the submissions made by the learned SDR and from the documents produced by him that the Revenue could have framed a wiser case in the show cause notice. The learned SDR has submitted inter alia that enough documentary evidence is available with the department to impose a penalty on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act on the ground that they rendered themselves to such penalty by rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act by presenting the goods for export in violation of the relevant EXIM Policy provisions and misdeclaring the description of the goods. Suffice it to say that the department is at liberty to do whatever is legally feasible in this regard. 6. The appeal stands disposed of as above. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2011 (5) TMI 880
... ...
... ... ..... ther Assistant Collector of Customs (P) could prefer an Appeal against inadequacy sentence was considered by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V. Krishnamoorthy, reported at 1997 (3) SCC 100 1997 (90) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) and the Court held that no such appeal could be filed. In view of this, Appeal would have to be dismissed as incompetent. 3. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 also pointed out that Article 115(b) of the Limitation Act provided for limitation of only 60 days for appeal from any other sentence or order, not being an order of acquittal. In this case, even according to the learned Spl. P.P. for Union of India, who drafted an Appeal, a copy of Judgment became available on 7th April, 1994, however, Appeal was filed on 22nd June, 1994 that is beyond a period of 60 days which is described under Article 115(b) of the Limitation Act even on this count Appeal is barred. 4. In view of this, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 879
... ...
... ... ..... we notice from the report of the Joint Commissioner that the passenger had been marked by the Deputy Commissioner for special examination. 8.4 Apparently, such huge quantity of goods might not be attempted to be smuggled without the assured help of somebody. Shri Ashok Kumar, himself has admitted that some officer has been spoken to. However, the investigation has not brought clear evidence that the officer who was meant to help Shri Ashok Kumar was Mr. Kapoor or Mr. Garcha. No material has been disclosed in the grounds of appeal to contradict to finding of fact by the Commissioner in respect of other respondents also namely, Shri Jaswinder Singh, Trilok Singh and Harinder Singh. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeals of the Revenue. 10. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the finding of the Commissioner in respect of confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalties on other parties. 11. Appeals are rejected.
-
2011 (5) TMI 841
Whether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 can be extended to such unit/person who has not paid the interest payable on delayed payment of evaded duty and penalty to the extent of 25% of duty amount within 30 days from the date of passing order by the adjudicating authority - Held that:- As the language of Section 114A of the Customs Act, as in the case of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act permits option to the assessee, the ratio laid down in M/s. Akash Fashion Prints Private Limited (2009 - TMI - 33022 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) is also applicable in the present appeal, no question of law arising in this appeal, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (5) TMI 832
Maintainability of the applications for Advance Ruling - applicant submitted that it satisfies the requirement of being a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company of which the holding company is a foreign company. The applicant proposes to undertake a new business activity in India of selling, distributing and servicing Hardware Products and Oracle Hardware support and that the application for Advance Ruling is regarding the principles to be adopted for the purposes of determination and value of goods under the provision of the Customs Act, 1962 - applicant is already in the business of import of software and provides services to its clients in India. The applicant has also imported some kind of computer hardware for its own use; it has not been marketing any computer hardware in the country. Computer hardware refers to different kinds of computers and their parts and components which are classified under different entries of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The applicant proposes to import and sell computer hardware and also provide support services - Held that:- activity of import has taken place but term activity should not be interpreted in a narrow sense, applicant is not eligible to seek a ruling on its proposed business activity. The applications are therefore not maintainable and are rejected
-
2011 (5) TMI 798
Whether the appeal was filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order or not – appellants factory was lying closed for a longer period. The appellant did not participate in the adjudication proceedings on account of non-receipt of show cause notice and on account of non-receipt of the notices of personal hearing - order was not served upon the appellant in person but the same was pasted on the notice board of the factory after the same was returned back by the postal authorities with remarks “not claimed” - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue of the actual date of receipt of the order, in the light of the declaration of law by the Larger Bench in the above referred decision of Margra Industries Ltd. as also has not referred to the other judgments including the Supreme Court’s decision, relied upon by the appellant to decide about the actual date of communication of the order, matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), appeal get disposed off
-
2011 (5) TMI 797
Release of goods imported - Court directed the respondents therein to have the goods released in the manner as specified therein - final orders were passed by the concerned party which stands against the petitioner and hence the petitioner has already approached the appellate authority by filing appeal - grievance regard to the delay in considering the appeal and the petitioner prays for a direction to be given to the appellate authority to have it finalized within a reasonable time – Held that:- writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext. P3 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, Writ Petition is disposed of
-
2011 (5) TMI 796
Enhancement of value - clearance of ”Heavy Melting Scrap” claiming classification under CTH 7204.4900 with Nil Basic plus 10% CVD. The unit value of the product was declared at US $ 370/- per MT. The Customs authorities on examination, found that the goods were old and used ship chains made of mild steel. Accordingly they revised classification under CTH 7315.20 as ”ship chains” and also enhanced the value for assessment purposes from US $ 370 to US $ 480 per MT - Held that:- these goods have to be treated as waste and scrap only, old, used and worn out ship chains merit classification as waste and scrap under Heading No. 72.04 of the Customs Tariff, reject the claim of the department to enhance the value from US $ 370 to US $ 480 per MT, goods should be assessed to duty at the value claimed by the appellant, which is US $ 370 per MT, appeal allowed [Patiala Castings Pvt. Ltd.(2002 - TMI - 46635 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)]
-
2011 (5) TMI 795
Mis-declaration – Held that:- goods were entered for export and were mis-declared as musical instruments and handicrafts whereas on examination the same were found to be sawn timber in different sizes, lower appellate authority has also found that there are other contraventions in regard to export policy even for export of sawn timber, no justification for reduction in the redemption fine and the penalty determined by the lower appellate authority, Appeal is rejected
|
