Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs Tri Customs - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 19921 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1270 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. MCT Deluxe Honour Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (Preventive) , Jodhpur

    Penalty u/s 114 (i) of CA 1962 on main appellant and Director - export of red sanders - prohibited goods - Held that - The fact that there was a mis-declared export consignment for which shipping bill was filed by M/s. Bhavya Exports at Air Cargo , Jaipur is not in dispute - The close examination of the facts analyzed by the impugned order makes it clear that the appellants cannot be de-linked from the responsibility of involvement in such improp....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1269 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    M/s Aveco Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad

    Classification of imported goods - projectors of a kind which are principally used in an Automatic Data Processing System - While the appellant claims that the projectors imported by it were principally used in an Automatic Data Processing System (ADPS for short, which usually refers to computers) and are thus entitled for exemption, the Revenues case is that the projectors are equally usable in ADP systems as well as with Non-ADP equipments such....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1268 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Hyderabad-II Versus M/s RK Exports

    Valuation - enhancement of value of imported goods i.e. PVC Flex Sheet Rolls - contemporaneous imports - Held that - in the absence of any contrary evidence to the finding recorded by the First Appellate authority, the Revenue s appeal is devoid of merits - respondent has filed cross-objections which are actually in support of the First Appellate Authority s order and has annexed various documents indicating the contract signed by them with the C....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1237 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Keshwanand Chemicals (P) Ltd. Versus CCE Indore

    Classification of imported goods - Under Pads - appellant claimed the classification under CTH 48184090 and the department sought to classify the said goods under CTH 48184010 - Held that - the product is essentially having the characteristics of the disposable under pads which are technically known as disposable bed pads/ bed sheets - Since, the goods in question were not made for fastening into the body, the same should not be termed as baby an....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1197 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    Smt. Sahana Khatun, Md. Aftab Ahmed., Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Sh. Prabir Kumar Thakur, Sh. Bikash Pal B Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & S. Tax, Patna

    Confiscation of seized Betel Nuts - smuggling - Held that - the appellant had not refuted the allegations against them except that the goods are non-notified items - the quantum of redemption fine and penalty are excessive - the fine and penalties imposed on the appellants are reduced to 50 of the amount as ordered - appeal allowed in part........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1196 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    CC, Vijayawada Versus Foods, Fats And Fertilizers Ltd.

    Classification of imported goods - Palm Stearin - Adjudicating authority vide speaking order classified the goods imported under chapter 38.23 as against the claim of the Respondent before him being covered under chapter 15.11 - Held that - the issue is now covered by the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Visakhapatnam vs. Jocil Ltd 2010 (12) TMI 24 - Supreme Court of India , w....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1195 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    CC, New Delhi Versus M/s Tag Overseas

    Scope of SCN - classification of imported goods - Held that - In the SCN the revenue sought classification under CTH 44219019 whereas in the appeal the revenue now want to change the classification to CTH 44219090 which is beyond the scope of the SCN - appeal not maintainable as beyond the scope of SCN - Appeal dismissed........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1194 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Electromedicals, Indore Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

    Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 - inport of D.C. Defibrillators for Internal use & Pacemakers - Revenue says that internal use means the Defibrillator is required to be used internally - Appellant explains that the equipment cannot be used in the body of a patient. - Held that - Revenue has no evidence to show that D.C. Defibrillators is required to be used in the heart but not in the Operation Theatre. When Revenue fails to lead....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1139 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Shiv Ganga Polypet LLP Versus Commissioner of Customs (NS-I) , Nhava Sheva

    Provisional release of imported goods - areca nuts - Held that - nature of the goods being perishable as well as the interest of Revenue as several importers in the past have subsequently not been traceable after taking release of goods in similar circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to modify the conditions of provisional release - appeal allowed subject to modification of terms........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Falcon India Versus C.C., New Delhi

    Penalty under the provisions of Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20(7) and 22 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 - time limitation - Held that - there is no offence report received by the licensing authority prior to the issue of show cause notice by the DRI, which is received on 05.10.2016 - No such report has been received or placed on record prior to the issue of show cause notice by the DRI. As such, we find no breach of limitati....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1137 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Sri Anjaneya Cotton Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

    Conversion of shipping bills - EPCG scheme to drawback cum-EPCG scheme - denial on the ground that no substantive reason for seeking conversion, after two years of export, was given other than ignorance of procedures for claiming duty drawback - Held that - The scheme allows export and import for capital goods for predetermined or specified value of exports to be effected within a specified period. However, this scheme applies only to capital goo....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1136 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Shri Vipin Kumar, Shri Ashish Khetarpal Versus CC (Sea) , Chennai-II

    Misclassification and misdeclaration of value of imported goods - Concentrated mineral drops (CMD), Elete Electrolyte and NanoSiI etc. - penalties u/s 112 (a) and 114 AA of the CA 1962 - Held that - the penalties imposed u/s 112 (a) requires interference as the issue with regard to the classification has now been decided in favour of the appellants - However, since there is finding by the Tribunal that the valuation of the goods is not proper and....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1135 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Honda Siel Products Ltd. Versus CC, Chennai-IV

    Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cuse dated 14/09/2007 - denial on the ground that appellants have not paid the VAT as they availed VAT exemption - Held that - the issue whether the appellants are eligible for refund when the goods are exempted from levy of sales tax/VAT is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 565 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where Decision in the case of Vazir ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1134 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Versus CC (Port-Import) , Chennai

    Refund claim - valuation - air freight - case of appellant is that as per Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of the imported goods) Rules, 2007, the assessable value has to be arrived by restricting the air freight component to 20 of the FOB value of the goods - Held that - the freight element has to be restricted to 20 of the FOB value when the cost of transportation of the goods is ascertainable and the transportation i....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1077 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    M/s Indian Acrylics Limited Versus C.C., Kandla

    Whether the appellant are required to discharge duty on the invoice quantity of bulk liquid cargo imported as reflected in the Bills of entry or on the quantity shown in the out turn report as determined? - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs CCE Mangalore 2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT has held that If the goods are pilferred after they are unloaded or lost or destroyed at any time bef....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1076 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    M/s JK Industries Versus C.C. -Jamnagar (Prev)

    Refund claim - denial on the ground that since the appellant had not filed appeal against the assessment order, therefore, the refund claim filed under Sec 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not maintainable - whether the appellant are entitled to refund of customs duty paid against respective Bills of Entry which was finally assessed on 22.2.2014? - Held that - post amendment to Sec 27, w.e.f. 1.4.2011 there is no necessity to file appeal against th....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1075 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. YKK India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, New Delhi

    Valuation - includibility - royalty charges paid by the appellant to the Japan Company - Held that - the cost of imported components and parts are to be excluded to arrive at the net value for computation of royalty charges - the factual and legal findings as recorded by the Original Authority cannot be contested - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1074 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

    M/s. SUBASH PROJETS & MARKETING LTD, M/s. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD Versus Commissioner of Customs COCHIN-CUS

    Project import - Drinking Water Supply Projects for supply of water for human or animal consumption - N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 - Held that - the appellants have imported pipes and utilized the same for drinking water supply project and not for water treatment project - appellants will not be entitled to the benefit of Project Import as well as Customs N/N. 21/2002. - Reliance placed in the case of Pratibha Industries Ltd. Versus Commissio....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1073 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

    Om Sri Sai Flowers Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-cus

    ROM application - validity of stay order - Held that - Stay Order has been pronounced after appreciating the submissions of both sides - Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. 2005 (4) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE has held that once the Tribunal has passed an order in connection with predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Tribunal cannot modify that order ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1072 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

    Commissioner OF Customs AND Service Tax Bangalore-Cus Versus M/s. L.T. Karle International (Unit 1 & Ii) , And M/s. Karle International (Unit. V)

    100 EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - respondent had claimed that these services on which credit was availed were utilized in the manufacture and export of readymade garments - Held that - the CBEC has issued Circular No.120/01/2010/ST dated 19.1.2010 in which certain guidelines have been prescribed to process such refund claims under Rule 5 - the learned Commissioner (A) has recorded the finding that all the services, received and utili....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version