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 41 to 60 of 19912 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 662 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Goodwill Imports Versus Commissioner of Customs

    Absolute confiscation - import of one consignment of off the road tyres and run flat tyres - seizure - It was found that the run flat tyres were not in conformity with the requirement of Board s Instruction dated 30.01.2012 inasmuch as the said tyres were required to carry a security symbol with them - Held that - it is not disputed that the tyres in question having the embossed mark as RF which represent run flat tyre - the appellant is willing ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 661 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai Versus Jitendra Chimanlal Thakkar

    Rectification of Mistake - error in the first para of the order No. A/89803/17/SMB dt.1.9.2017 that there a mention Thirteen (13) years have passed. But no re-adjudication order has been passed - Held that - the case was made out in the year 2001 therefore even more than 13 years have passed facing the litigation by the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order of this Tribunal dt. 1.9.2017 - ROM application dismissed........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 660 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

    Vipin Mahajan, Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd., Rahul Bhandare Versus Additional Director General (Adjudication)

    Status of applicant - functus officio - rule 28C, read with rule 28A, of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that - applicant is not a respondent on record and that, as adjudicating author of the order impugned before us, he is functus officio. - The adjudicating authority has no existence with the closure of proceedings initiated in a show cause notice and, deprived of the faculty of initiative, is th....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 659 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

    Lynx Express Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs-II, Airport Special Cargo, (CSI Airport) , Mumbai

    Condonation of delay - Held that - there no deliberate delay or lapse on the part of the appellant in pursuing their appeal before this Tribunal. We further notice that this matter relates to licence of the appellant and there is no implication of revenue in this appeal - application for condonation of delay allowed. - Rejection of the representation which was made with respect to the order dated 26th November 2015 passed by the Commissioner dere....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 658 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

    Tata Precision Industries (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai

    Restoration of appeal - case of appellant is that there is no deliberate default on their part and accordingly the ex-parte order may be recalled and the appeal be restored - Held that - the appellant was diligently pursuing the appeal and it was only due to difficulty beyond their control, they could not appear on 22.5.2017 - the order dated 22.5.2017 recalled and appeal restored to its original number - application for ROA allowed........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 657 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Sri Lalkamal Enterprises, Vimal Kumar, Proprietor, Abdul Saleem, Sterling Steels, Asif Rehman, Proprietor Versus CC Chennai

    Misdeclaration - Import of restricted item - Copper Wire Scrap with PVC sheathing of Druid grade - main contention of the department is that the imported goods have been misdeclared as copper scrap, lead scrap and insulated material whereas they are actually Copper Wire Scrap with PVC sheathing of Druid grade which can be imported without a license only by the units registered with the Ministry of Environment and Forests but the importer herein d....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 656 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Nhava Sheva Versus Trans Tyres (I) Ltd.

    Monetary limit involved in appeal - Held that - As per the Board s Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17/8/2011 as amended by Circular F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 on Government s litigation, the Revenue is barred from filing appeal before this Tribunal, if the amount of duty or penalty or interest involved is not in excess ₹ 10 lacs unless the case involves classification, refund, or a matter of legal and recurring ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 655 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

    Castrol India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai

    Levy of duty - liquid bulk inputs - whether on the quality landed in India or the quality declared in the documents of inputs as loaded on the vessel? - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore 2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that a demand or duty on transaction value would be leviable in spite of ocean loss, it flies in the face of....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 654 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Crompton Greaves Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Ep) , Mumbai

    Amendment in shipping bills - conversion of shipping bills under drawback scheme into DEEC scheme - Held that - Only when proper documents claiming DEEC benefits are filed at the time of export that facilitates to scrutiny by Customs. But due to failure of the appellant to file such documents at the time of export, amendment of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 became difficult without good reason stated by appellant. ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 587 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

    Nipa Fashions Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai

    Benefit of N/N. 106/95-Cus - fabrics - imports with a condition of re-export of the final product - Held that - it appears that the test results cannot be validated by subsequent retest on resubmission of the samples. It is evident that the original testing was made on estimation. No case has been made by the department and no corroborative evidence has been placed before us - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 586 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD

    M/s Northern Tannery Versus Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur

    Classification of goods - imported sulphonated fish oil - perusal of retest report - Held that - It was not within the jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to rely upon the first test report, which was taken note of in the first order of Commissioner (Appeals) and was set aside. Further as per the re-test the goods are free from mineral oils thus taking them out of the ambit of Chapter heading 3403 - the order passed by the Original Adjudicatin....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 585 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    R. Sundararaj, R. Mohanraj Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

    Condonation of delay of 3136 days in filing the appeal - delay on the ground of non-service of notice - Held that - it is for the department to establish that the order has been served upon the appellants. Though the dispatch document is showing the dispatch of the Order-in-Original, as furnished by both sides, we do not find any evidence establishing that the copy of the order has been served upon the appellants - delay cannot be condoned - COD ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 584 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s. Shubham Construction Versus CC (Port-Import) , Chennai

    Import of restricted item - old/used digital multifunctional Print and Copying Machines - Department took the view that the impugned goods are restricted for import and required valid license for import, which was not produced by the importer - Held that - the imported goods in question are not restricted item - the imposition of redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable and are required to be set aside. - The impugned order is modified by se....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 583 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    GE India Industrial Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export) , Chennai

    Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground that the sale invoice does not contain no credit of additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 shall be admissible against this invoice - Held that - the matter is no longer res integra vide the Tribunal s decision in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) , wherein the Larger Bench has held that the endorsement is merely procedura....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 582 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Metro Cash And Carry India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (Port-Import) , Chennai

    Application to recall the final order - service of notice - Held that - There is no grievance on the part of the ld. Counsel that the earlier intimations for adjourning the matters were not received by them. The present notice adjourning the case has also been sent to the very same address. Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the notice was not received by them. - There is no affidavit filed that they have not received notice. It is only....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 581 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

    R.G. Gupta & Company Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana

    Restoration of appeal - provisional release of goods - Held that - the relief sought by the applicant in the initial appeal filed by the applicant against the order of provisional release is required to be revived otherwise the applicant shall remain remedy less. As there is change in the circumstance, therefore, the application for restoration of the appeal is required to be examined. - Admittedly in this case, initially the applicant has withdr....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 494 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus C.C. - Jamnagar (Prev)

    Refund of excess duty paid - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - whether the amount paid at the time of provisional assessment can be treated as pre-deposit of duty paid during the pendency of assessment or not? - Held that - Admittedly the appellant has opted for provisional assessment and the assessment has been finalized later on. So, therefore the amount paid by the appellant during the pendency of adjudication proceedings shall be th....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 493 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. R.R. Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (Port-Import) , Chennai

    100 EOU - benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus - case of Revenue is that some of the items imported by the appellants may not qualify as capital goods and the exemption already allowed is not sustainable - Held that - the goods were duly assessed as capital goods by the competent officer at the port of entry. The same has not been varied by that officer. The goods were in warehouse. - In the case of Greenspan Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune 2013 (5) TMI ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 492 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd.

    Scope of SCN - case of respondent is that the department has not appealed against the invocation of extended period in the grounds of appeal - Held that - The department in the grounds of appeal has not raised the invokability of extended period, which shows that they are not aggrieved with the finding of the Commissioner on the ground of non-invokability of extended period - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 491 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Balu Enterprises Versus CC (Port-Import) , Chennai

    Import of restricted item - old/used digital multifunctional Print and Copying Machines - enhancement of value - Held that - the imported goods in question are not restricted item - during the relevant period the impugned goods were not restricted and the adjudicating authority has invoked only Section 111 (d) to hold that goods are liable for confiscation. Hence the imposition of redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable and are required to ....... + More


3........
 
 
 
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