Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax 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 Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner Other
Citation	--Year-- 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 - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 1122 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

• 2019 (9) TMI 229
  
  Maintainability of appeal before HC or SC - appropriate forum or not - whether an appeal from the order of CESTAT, involving an issue regarding violation of conditions contained in customs exemption notification, would lie before the High Court under the provisions of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 or to this Court under the provisions of Section 130E of the Customs Act? HELD THAT:- An appeal shall lie to the High Court against every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The only exception carved out is that an appeal shall lie before this Court and shall not lie before the High Court against the order relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of go....... + More

---

• 2019 (7) TMI 1065
  
  Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case M/s. Khanbhai Esoofbhai in whose hands the vessel was actually broken up is liable to pay customs duty that became leviable in accordance with proviso to N/N. 163/65Cus dated 16.10.1965, or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- Following the judgment of this Court in [2016 (4) TMI 490 - SUPREME COURT], the appeal is allowed. - when excise duty is exempted, there is no question of payment of additional duty. Consequent to the appeal being allowed it shall be open for the appellant to request for refund of the custom duty paid by the appellant.

---

• 2019 (6) TMI 983
  
  Condonation of delay of 731 days in filing appeal - valuation of imported goods - HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 731 days in filing the appeal which has not been explained satisfactorily - Even on merits, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

---

• 2019 (6) TMI 982
  
  Application for early hearing of the appeal - Benefit of Notification No. 43/2002 - HELD THAT:- Let the appeal be listed in the month of March, 2019 before the appropriate Bench - Application disposed off.

---

• 2019 (6) TMI 527
  
  Extension of ADD for a further period of two months - - Relevant date of notification - notification of 20.8.2018 - HELD THAT:- The application before the High Court has been fixed on 12th June, 2019. We are not inclined to interfere all more so since this stage, the order impugned was passed on 24th April, 2019. These matters are adjourned till 17th June, 2019.

---

• 2019 (5) TMI 1652
  
  Validity of SCN - During the pendency of these SLPs, SCN came to be issued by the competent authority, which has been duly served on the petitioner(s) - HELD THAT:- The petitioner(s) may have to assail the said show cause notice in the first instance. We permit the petitioner(s) to pursue such remedies, including filing of Writ Petition before the High Court, as may be available against the said show cause notice, which be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law. If the Writ Petition is filed before the High Court, we request the High Court to consider the prayer for interim directions expeditiously on its own merits after hearing all concerned - SLP disposed off.

---

• 2019 (5) TMI 1152
  
  Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - recording in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared and intimation to the importer under Rule 12 (2) - aluminium scrap - inclusion of value of commission, brokerage, engineering, design work, cost of transportation, etc. in declared value - scope of 'reason to believe' - provisional assessment of duty - HELD THAT:- Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the Section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where importer or exporter has produced necessary documents and furnished full information for assessment of duty but the proper officer deems it necessary to make further enquiry for assessing the duty. However, Clause (d) is wider and would apply when the importer or e....... + More

---

• 2019 (4) TMI 1729
  
  Detention of goods - grievance of appellant is essentially that even if the reassessment had been completed that did not result in deciding the issue as to whether the initial action of detention of the goods was legal and proper - HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention, we deem it appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court by restoring the Writ Petition to its original number for reconsideration on all aspects. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

---

• 2019 (4) TMI 1565
  
  Stay of appeal - The CESTAT in the impugned order ELECTROTHERM INDIA LIMITED, ASHAPURA VOLCLAY LTD AND OTHERS VERSUS C.C., KANDLA AND ORS. [2017 (6) TMI 659 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] had noted that the said issue of classification is pending in this Court in other appeals. The order of the CESTAT disposing of the appeal is set aside and it is clarified that the appeal would remain pending before the CESTAT till the issue is decided by this Court whereafter the parties can approach the CESTAT - Status quo which was granted by the CESTAT shall continue.

---

• 2019 (4) TMI 1444
  
  Application of valuation rules - comparing value with import from other countries - import of branded goods from related party - undervaluation of goods - electrical decorative lights - Recovery of duties not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded - Suppression of facts - non-declaration of brand of imported goods, intentionally - HELD THAT:- The electrical decorative lightings, normally, are not highly branded products, exceptions apart. It does appear that even though the imports were under the brand names ‘Diyas’ and ‘mAntra’, they were not trademarks of such nature as would make them an exclusive product. It also appears that there has been some mix up in the understanding of a trademark protection, as the same has been compared with ‘patented goods’. Thus, data was certainly available, whic....... + More

---

• 2019 (3) TMI 201
  
  Offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - maintainability of prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 or not - power of Collector of Customs - Section 3 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. Whether there is a common genus contained in the specific enumeration of two laws namely the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958? - Held that:- The Antiquity (Export Control) Act, 1947 came into force. The said Act has been repealed by the Antiquities Act but we will refer to certain provisions contained in the Act in connection with one of the contentions of the appellant. It is thereafter that the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 which is another enactment specifically enumerated in Section 30 of the Act in ques....... + More

---

• 2019 (1) TMI 1324
  
  Detention of imported item - prohibited goods or not? - import of Multi-­Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) - violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015­2020 framed under Sections 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade Act and the Wastes Management Rules - penultimate direction for deposit of Bond without sureties - Held that:- Indisputably, the respondents did not possess the necessary authorisation for their import. The customs authorities therefore prima facie cannot be said to be unjustified in detaining the consignment. Merely because earlier on more than one occasion, similar consignments of the respondent or others may have been cleared by the customs authorities at the Calcutta, Chennai or Cochin ports on payment of redemption fine cannot be a justification simpliciter to demand parity of treatment for the present consign....... + More

---

• 2018 (12) TMI 960
  
  Time Limitation - short levy of duty on the imported goods due to willful mis-declaration and suppression of facts and on the strength of forged documents - whether the finding of the CESTAT that the demand was barred by limitation is sustainable or not? - Held that:- The authorities have sufficiently described the wrong transactions and the allegedly illegal benefit obtained by the importers in respect of the rate of duty, from paragraph 43 onwards in the said show cause notice. Undoubtedly, if the importers will be entitled to demonstrate that the allegations against them cannot be established on the basis of the show cause notice, that however does not entitle them to the relief of setting aside of the order against them on the ground of limitation - appeal allowed - Matter restored before the CESTAT.

---

• 2018 (12) TMI 738
  
  Valuation of imported goods - Aluminum Scrap - rejection of declared value - enhancement of assessable value - Held that:- As per Sections 14(1) and 14(1-A), the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of ‘deemed value’ of such goods. Therefore, normally, the Assessing Officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/transaction value of the goods. This, ordinarily, is the course of action which needs to be followed by the Assessing Officer. This principle of arriving at transaction value to be the assessable value applies. Exceptions are, however, carved out and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction value mentioned in the Bills of Entr....... + More

---

• 2018 (8) TMI 434
  
  Refund of deposits made by respondents - Revenue has not proceeded with the adjudication of the said show cause notices - Held that:- When these matters are pending for the last almost 10 years and no adjudication has taken place, it may not be appropriate to interfere with the directions of the High Court to refund the amount to the respondents - Insofar as adjudication of the show cause notices is concerned, it is left open to the appellant to proceed with the same as per the advise of the competent authority - petition disposed off.

---

• 2018 (8) TMI 49
  
  Entitlement to Demurrage charges - effect of subsequent development i.e. clarification dated 14th May, 1996 - Held that:- No mala fide intent or any extraneous reasons/ grounds can be attributed to the Revenue in detaining and refusing to clear the goods of the importer(s). Rather, the actions of the Revenue were prompted by what we consider to be a possible understanding of the provisions of the Notification in force i.e. Notification No.104/95 dated 30th May, 1995. The subsequent change of opinion and issuance of Circular bearing No.4/1006 dated 14th May, 1996 would not make the Revenue liable as has been sought to be contended by the importer(s) unless the initial action is palpably wrong or wholly unacceptable which is not the position in the present case - A stand taken by the Revenue or an action undertaken which is subsequently cor....... + More

---

• 2018 (7) TMI 1826
  
  Interpretation of tax exemption Notification / statutory provision - applicability in case of ambiguity - correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1997 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Held that:- It is the law that any ambiguity in a taxing statute should enure to the benefit of the subject/assessee, but any ambiguity in the exemption clause of exemption notification must be conferred in favour of revenue – and such exemption should be allowed to be availed only to those subjects/assesses who demonstrate that a case for exemption squarely falls within the parameters enumerated in the notification and that the claimants satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing exemption. Every taxing statue including, charging, computation and exemption clause (at the threshold stage) shou....... + More

---

• 2018 (6) TMI 1499
  
  Interpretation of Statute - Refund of SAD - Benefit of Notification dated 14-9-2007 - refund of additional duty of Customs paid by the importer of goods u/s 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Held that:- A mere conversion of imported logs in the Sawn Timber without loss of identity of the original product would not deprive the importer of the benefit of the exemption notification - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1150
  
  Recovery of duty - import of Low Ash Matellurgical Coke claiming the benefit of certain advance licences allegedly purchased by the respondent Company - only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that when such an application under Section 130A seeking a reference is made, the High Court is mandatorily obliged to call for a statement from the Tribunal before deciding the application - Held that: - We do not find anything in the text of Section 130A which implies that the High Court is mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every case, where a reference is made. We say so because of the language of SubSection 4 which opens with an ‘if’ - having regard to the fact that it is a question of law, we deem it appropriate that the matters be decided by a larger Bench of appropriate strength. Matter placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate further course of action.

---

• 2018 (3) TMI 460
  
  Pre-deposit - the amount that was required to be deposited by the appellant before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai for non compliance of which the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal by order dated 06.04.2015, which dismissal has been affirmed by the High Court in further appeal by order dated 07.08.2017 - the decision in the case of M/s. KCF Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Import) [2018 (3) TMI 439 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] referred - Held that: - Having regard to the deposit made, we set aside the orders of the High Court and the learned Tribunal dismissing the appeal(s) and restore the appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal - appeal restored.

---