-
2009 (7) TMI 1366
... ...
... ... ..... lam, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1331
... ... ... ... ..... y hearing may be granted. 2. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter twice to the original authority. The goods are lying with the Departments custody since 2013. 3. In view of the above, we direct the original authority to re-examine the matter as per the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of four weeks from today. The learned counsel for the assessee will submit the copy of this order to the original authority within a period of one week. Wi....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1325
... ... ... ... ..... y relevant or partly irrelevant evidence and is otherwise perverse and arbitrary. 2. To be heard along with Customs Appeal No. 54 of 2009 which was admitted on 7th July, 2009. Appellants to serve the respondents within eight weeks from today, failing which appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1306
... ...
... ... ..... am, JJ. ORDER Appeal Dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1305
... ... ... ... ..... ire amount of ₹ 67,56,033/- and appellant M/s. Raj International to deposit the amount of ₹ 1,00,05,250/- within four weeks from today and make compliance on 30th July, 2009. In the result, both the stay applications are rejected. 3. We find from the above that the Tribunal has formed a prima facie view and on that basis the aforesaid order has been passed. The Tribunal, thus, took into consideration all relevant facts, including the interest of the revenue, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Benar....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1296
... ... ... ... ..... law up to 12/07/2006. Further placed the reliance on the decision in the case of CC Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., (2009 (91) RLT 255 (CESTAT-LB) 2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri-LB) wherein it was held that prior to 13/07/2006, refund, which became due on final assessment is to be made without the claim being submitted by the assessee and, therefore, did not attract the provisions of unjust enrichment. 9. Heard. 10. On perusal of the record, I find that this case pertains to period prior to 13/07/2006. The doctrine of unjust enrichment ....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1287
... ... ... ... ..... that an order relating to renewal of CHA licence is administrative in nature and not a quasi-judicial order against which an appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that appeal does not lie before the Tribunal following the judgment of the Honble Calcutta High Court in M. Dutta Agency Vs. Commissioner 1998 (1) LCX 77 and Tribunals decision in P. Cawasji and Co. 2000 (119) ELT 606 and G.P. Jaiswal 2008 (226) ELT 707. The Tribunals order in A.S. Vasan Sons cited supra has been upheld by the Bombay H....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1286
Smuggling - sugar - Case of the Revenue is that the sugar is being stored near the Bangladesh Border and it is for smuggling to Bangladesh and it is well known fact that there has been regular smuggling of sugar through this area - Held that: - no evidence whatsoever has been adduced to show that the confiscated sugar was being attempted for illegal export. The sugar was merely stored in godown and storing is not synonymous with attempts to illegal export to Bangladesh. In view of these facts and as there is no evidence on record that the suga....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1278
... ... ... ... ..... silver gears or that he was involved with him; the petitioner was only a proprietor of the courier company and goods were recovered duly packed; the petitioner had agreed for some extra payment only, to generate an invoice; the respondent has been unable to show that the petitioner may commit any offence, if bail is granted to him, I consider this to be a fit case for grant of bail inasmuch as, the parameters of section 37 of the NDPS Act are fully met. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal ....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1272
... ... ... ... ..... plea of being not guilty in this case, advanced by the CHA M/s. Vaz Forwarding Ltd., their Director Shri Winstor Gregor Vaz and their representative Shri Suresh Yadav is not acceptable. 4. As is seen from the above, there is no direct evidence on record to show that the said appellants were aware of the fact of the advance licences being bogus and forged. There may be some contravention as regards following procedure envisaged in the Customs House Licensing Rules, but there is virtually no evidence to show any knowledge on....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1246
Whether the High Court correct to upheld the order of conviction passed against the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of ₹ 1 lac, and in default of payment of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of two years, for having found in possession of 2 bags containing 61 Kgs. of poppy husk, without any permit or licence?
-
2009 (7) TMI 1232
Valuation Customs - Second-hand photocopier machines imported - decision in the case of NEW COPIER SYNDICATE Versus COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & ST. (A), HYDERABAD [2008 (10) TMI 533 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that the revenue cannot reject the transaction value and proceed to determine the value under provisions of Rule 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - present appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1227
... ...
... ... ..... y condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1225
... ... ... ... ..... iled in the Bombay High Court. 4. In our view, such a writ petition ought to have been filed by the Department before the Delhi High Court. The Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to decide upon the validity of the Order passed by Settlement Commission, New Delhi. In fact the respondent herein had instituted a Petition being Writ Petition No. 15836 of 2006 in the Delhi High Court on a collateral issue, which stands disposed of. Hence, in our view, Department had chosen a wrong forum. 5. In the circumstance, if so advised....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1223
Detention of person - territorial jurisdiction - Maintainability of petition - Held that: - even if we are to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction from the standpoint of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, this Court would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition - whether the present case is viewed from the standpoint of Article 226(1) or from the standpoint of Article 226(2), this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Validity of detention order - th....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1212
... ... ... ... ..... ry was assessed by the proper officer and appropriate duty as per assessment order was paid. The assessment Order was not challenged by the Respondents. In the decisions relied upon by the Revenue as noted above, after taking into consideration the decision of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries (supra) it is held that in absence of challenge to the assessment Order the refund is not maintainable. The Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Karan Associates (supra) held that in the case of Karnataka Powe....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1144
Whether compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”) is mandatory and failure to take down the information in writing and forthwith send a report to his immediate official superior would cause prejudice to the accused? Held that:- The compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer........ + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1138
... ... ... ... ..... s Tariff Act, 1975, statutory mandate is that there should be a Notification in respect of concerned goods. In absence of Notification, invoking of Section 9 for the present case is inconceivable. Therefore, the case is only governed by Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. None present for the respondent. Having looked into the records and guided by Revenue rsquo s submission aforesaid, we are not inclined to order for sustaining the first appellate directions. Accordingly, we restore the Order-in-Original allowin....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1131
... ... ... ... ..... . It appears, no such safeguards were taken in the present case. This, however, would not detract from the penal liability otherwise fastened to the importer by virtue of the operation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Where the charge is abetment, the department has a burden to show that the person who allegedly abetted the offence committed by the importer did something or omitted to do something with intent to enable the importer to escape penal liability arising out of the import in breach of prohibition/restrictio....... + More
-
2009 (7) TMI 1130
Confiscation - Buff upper finished leather - penalty - Held that: - Since there is no intention to export prohibited goods and the goods have been only allowed to be taken back for re-processing, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is accordingly upheld - confiscation and penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
