Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2011 2011 2011 (5) Customs - 2011 (5) 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 61 to 65 of 65 Records

• 2011 (5) TMI 60 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Natural justice - valuation of the consignments of Drill Steel imported by the appellant from foreign supplier i.e.parent company - The lower authorities should have given the appellant an effective personal hearing for making the submissions on the ground that the appellant has claimed that they have not given enough time to reply the queries made by the adjudicating authority and to complete the detailed questionnaire - set aside the orders of the lower authority and remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice

  ---

• 2011 (5) TMI 56 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand - Notification No.32/97-Cus, dt.1.4.97 - it is noticed that these goods imported are under as per contract order specified in the notification and the resultant product which contained the imported goods have been duly exported to the same supplier who have entered to contract with appellant - The same stand correctly understood by the appellate authority and correctly applied - the notification while defining the goods also allows import of hangers for garments indicates that the same covers any item allowed to be imported with the only condition that the same should be used for the export goods - Decided in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (5) TMI 49 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Differential duty - there is a direction to the appellant to pay the differential amount in terms of finally assessed Bill of Entry and the provisionally assessed Bill of Entry - By no stretch of imagination, the said letter can be read to be as an appealable order so as to require the appellant to file an appeal their-against. It is only subsequent letter dt.16.12.05 indicating that the bills of entry assessed on 7.2.05 were supplied to the appellant - The minimum obligation on the part of the Revenue was that to supply a copy of the said Bill of Entry to the appellant, so as to enable them to challenge the same before higher appellate forum - It may be noted that even in the said letter, there is no indication that the assessed Bill of Entry were earlier supplied to the appellant and they are being given for the second time - Appeal is disposed off by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (5) TMI 40 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund claim - The appellant imported of High Speed Diesel Oil vide 14 Bills of Entry detailed in the impugned order in original and filed a refund claim - appellants submitted that the Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed and therefore, the Board s Circular No. 24/2 4-Cus dated 18.3.2004 was not applicable in their case - Held that: the appellants fairly conceded that the issue stands covered against them by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs reported as [2004 -TMI - 47045 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]- Find no merits in the appeal and reject the same.

  ---

• 2011 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Confiscation - Classification - Misdeclaration - According to the appellant, no such order could have been passed for setting aside the personal penalties imposed upon the persons by the Commissioner - So far the issue with regard to the classification is concerned, the matter has been remitted back and is to be considered by the Tribunal afresh in accordance with law and in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal - So far the issue with regard to imposition of personal penalties is concerned, the Tribunal has given its reasons for setting aside the said order - So far the charge of mis-declaration as regards the number of machines is concerned, the said issue also stands remanded to the original adjudicating authority for quantification of payment of duty on the said machines after deciding the classification

  Since the findings and the conclusions are based on cogent and valid reasons - The Civil Appeals are disposed of

  ---

1234