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 81 to 100 of 19924 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 337 - CESTAT BANGALORE

    Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Mangalore

    Refund claim - finalization of provisional assessment - Held that - issue has been settled in appellant s own case Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore 2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that the quantity of crude oil actually received into a shore tank in a port in India should be the basis for payment of Customs duty. Consequential action, in accordance with this declaration of l....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    C. Pinto Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

    Awaiting decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Apar Industries Limited (former known as Apar Limited) v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) 2011 (5) TMI 683 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Held that - it is considered proper that the Tribunal should go slow to decide the issue which is before Hon ble High Court and Hon ble Court is in sessin of the matter, following guidelines of the Hon ble High Court in Titanor Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of In....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 291 - CESTAT BANGALORE

    Waters (India) P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs

    Refund claim - validity of SCN - new case made against appellant after issuance of SCN - Held that - the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.03.2004 holding that the claim is within the period of limitation has become final and the Revenue has not filed appeal against the same. Therefore, the Revenue has to refund the entire amount of refund claim of ₹ 8,23,824/- whereas the Revenue has only refunded the amount of ₹ 2,22,4....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 247 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s Alfa Ica (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (E) , Mumbai

    Import of base paper by availing DEEC exemption - It was alleged that no nexus in the imported goods and exported goods - demand only on the ground that material use for export was white base paper whereas the material imported the paper was having design/colour - Held that - Circular No. 39/97-Cus. dated 16.09.1997 clearly prescribed that it is not necessary that the goods imported should match exactly those used in the export product provided t....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 246 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s Jindal Saw Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) , Nhava Sheva

    Refund of export duty - change in Rate of tax vide Notification - As per N/N. 66/2008-Cus dated 10.5.2008, the effective rate of export duty was 10 . The exports were taken place on 23.5.2008 and 26.5.2008. The said 10 rate of duty was become NIL vide N/N. 77/2008-Cus dated 13.6.2008 - Held that - merely by interpretation, the duty cannot become NIL, which was prevailing as per the statute. If at all, there is any intention of the Govt. not to le....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 245 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    CCE & ST, LTU, Chennai Versus M/s. T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd.

    Violation of import conditions - import of goods like rubber pads, slates and support plates etc., without payment of duty - Revenue held a view that the condition of value addition cannot be achieved if significant portion of manufacture involves indigenous items - N/N. 32/97-Cus. dated 01.04.1997 - Held that - Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saptagiri Leathers Vs. CC, Chennai 2002 (12) TMI 338 - CEGAT, CHENNAI , the Commi....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 244 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Nuance Group India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, C & ST Hyderabad

    Goods found short in the duty free shop - demand of duty - Charge of clearing of duty free goods and unaccounted goods from duty free stores of this appellant - Held that - the 1st Appellate Authority has correctly held against the appellant and findings are very relevant and in detail - it was held that the evidence on record in the form of oral evidence of the employees which have been elaborately discussed in the earlier Order-in-Original date....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 243 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Tangedco And Others Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

    Classification of imported goods - coal - the appellants were importing coal from different countries, especially from Indonesia classifying as steam coal falling under CTH 2701 1290. The steam coal attracted nil rate of duty whereas the bituminous coal falling under CTH 2701 1200 attracted 5 duty as per Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012. - Held that - in view of the conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench an....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 242 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Peeyemes Embroidery Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

    Valuation of imported goods - Barudan Multi Head Computerized Embroidery machine Model BED XH-YNB 20 head, 9 colour - similar goods - basis of enhancement of value was a purported identical model imported by different importer vide their Bill of Entry No.731210 dt. 20.12.2004 wherein the import price was ₹ 39,85,800/- - Held that - appellant had produced catalogue, explanation of the supplier for the price variation and also outlined the di....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 241 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Amman Steel Corporation Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirappalli

    Import of restricted item - iron steel plates which were secondary hot rolled sheets in different sizes and thickness - Department took the view that the goods being seconds, they cannot be imported through Tuticorin port in view of the restrictions in para-4 of the Import Licensing Notes to Chapter 72 of ITC (HS). - Held that - In a situation, where importers themselves have admitted, not only before the adjudicating authority, but also before t....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 240 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    CC (Imports) , Chennai Versus M/s. Usha International Ltd.

    Classification of imported goods - Shriram Brand water dispensers model YLRS1-5K/B-20 - whether classified under CTH 84186920 as refrigerator or otherwise? - N/N. 14/2008-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2008 - Held that - Indubitably, the impugned goods are composite goods, and hence, the component which provides the machine its essential character will be determined the factor for classification. The principal function of the goods is that of a dispenser of ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s IDMC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Nhava Sheva

    Refund of security deposit made towards the provisional assessment of Bills of Entry - unjust enrichment - Held that - Bills of Entry was provisionally assessed during the period 9.2.2004 to 2.12.2004 and the consignment was finally assessed by the Appraising Group VI on 23.5.2007. At the time of provisional assessment, there was no provision of unjust enrichment in case of a refund arising out of the final assessment in terms of Section 18 of th....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 159 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Malu Paper Mills Ltd., Poonamchand Malu Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

    Benefit of N/N. 66/2004-Cus. (serial No. 152-B) - it was alleged that the appellant was misusing the benefit of the exemption notification as amended by N/N. 66/2004-Cus. by using the imported waste paper in the manufacture of paper other than newsprint - Held that - there is no deliberate violation of the conditions of the exemption notification in question - the diversion of about 10 of the imported waste paper is only incidental and does not c....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 158 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Hari And Co. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

    Importer - SCN issued to the appellants along with M/s. Maruti Wood Industries, Arunesh Saw Mills, and the overseas suppliers contending that M/s. Maruthi Wood Industries are not the true importers who caused the import of the logs but their name were used by the appellant fraudulently - the case of department is mainly based on the statement given by proprietor Shri B. Dinesh of M/s. Maruti Wood Industries. In the statement given on 26.11.2013, ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 157 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Commissioner of Customs (Export) , Chennai Versus M/s. Areej Trading And Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

    Valuation - rejection of declared value - safari brand wafer bars - Held that - Though a search was conducted in the premises of the respondent, nothing incriminating was unearthed. The value has been proposed to enhance on the basis of the price available in the local market and on cash bills for purchase of safari chocolates. It is not clear whether the cash bills pertain to safari chocolate or safari wafers - there are no reasons to reject the....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 89 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli

    Education cess on Clean Energy Cess - imported steaming (non-coking) coal - Held that - Education Cess and Secondary & Education Cess as duty of Excise and duty of Customs are two different levies and as such Education Cess and Secondary & Education Cess as duty of excise is exempted but not as duty as Customs - The legal provisions for calculation of aggregate duty of Customs and Education and Higher Education Cess leviable on such duty ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 88 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Biesse Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports) , Chennai

    Valuation - related party transaction - identical/similar goods - Held that - it emerges that the appellants are 100 fully owned subsidiary of M/s. Biesse SPA, Italy, who is the supplier and seller. There is no doubt that the buyer and seller are related in view of Rule 2(2) of the CVR, 1988, for the purpose of Customs Act, 1962. The foreign supplier has procured the goods from third party suppliers and sold the same to the appellants at more or ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 87 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Commissioner of Customs (Airport) , Chennai Versus M/s. Redington India Ltd.

    Refund claim - interpretation of statute - sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Custom Act, 1962 - case of Revenue is that review order was mechanically issued without application of mind; hence, the review order falls foul of the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - It is not the dispute of the respondent that the grounds of appeal were different from the points or reasoning given in the file n....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 32 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    Commr. of Customs, Kolkata Versus Shri Mahesh Karel, Shri Gagan Karel

    Confiscation of goods - Gold is being melted in one Furnace - smuggling - Held that - In the present case, there is no material available that the goods are imported - the goods were seized at a melting shop at Kolkata, it is a registered melting shop and there is no material available that the goods are of foreign origin and therefore the confiscation of the goods is not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 31 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Dileep Dugar, Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Ramesh Agarwal, Tanwar Rajput & Co, Ramanand Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import)

    Valuation - mis-declaration of value - enhancement of invoice price - penalty - Held that - Indenting agents have no knowledge of the trade transaction; their role is merely to bring buyer and seller together in the highseas sale for a commission. In the instant case, evidence was collected by the department that some amount over and above the invoice value was paid. Payment was made through account payee cheque. The statement given by Shri Niraj....... + More


5........
 
 
 
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