|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 121 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1788
... ...
... ... ..... ischarged. TAX APPEAL No. 1713 OF 2007. In light of the judgment rendered today in Tax Appeal No. 638 of 2006 between the same parties, this Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. TAX APPEAL No. 1047 OF 2008. It is not possible to read provisions of Section 27 of the Act in unamended Section 18 of the Act as it stood upto 12.7.2006. The Tribunal was therefore in error in applying the principle of unjust enrichment. The Appeal is accordingly allowed for the reasons stated in judgment of even date rendered in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 638 of 2006.” We find that subsequently also in decision in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. reported in 2010(262) E.L.T. 106 (Guj.), this view has been followed by this Court. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law is arising for our consideration. Tax appeal is therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1787
... ...
... ... ..... that he is willing to go to the High Court provided all issues that are raised in this appeal are kept open to be urged before the High Court. We see no impediment in allowing the said prayer of the appellant. We dispose of this petition with the liberty to the Appellant to approach the High Court with appropriate appeals, which shall be filed within six weeks. The present appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1757
... ...
... ... ..... of 2008 In view of the order passed in C.A. No. 905/2006, this appeal is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1721
Condonation of delay - extended period of limitation - Held that: - it is clearly established from the records that the petitioner had knowledge and therefore provision of extension of the period of limitation would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case - appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1705
... ...
... ... ..... st ground on which show cause notice had been issued viz., for cancellation of custodianship is concerned, it was within the powers of concerned authority to cancel the same if the circumstances so required. However, there is no power vested in the respondent No.2 to levy interest in respect of the cost recovery charges payable by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the levy of statutory interest at the prescribed rate on purported arrears of salaries of customs staff to be paid by the petitioner imposed vide order of respondent No.2 dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-L) and 23.3.2001 (Annexure-H) being in excess of powers vested in respondent No.2, cannot be sustained. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-L) and 23.3.2001 (Annexure-H) to the extent that the same levy interest at the statutory rates, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1700
... ...
... ... ..... ty forthwith unless his presence is required in jail in connection with any other case.” 10. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as here also there is no explanation for the unreasonable delay in executing the detention order, we set aside the detention order and direct that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case. We may point out that on 16.12.2010 by virtue of our order dated 16.12.2010, which is extracted above, the detenue was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lacs with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. In view of the order passed in this petition today, the bail bond stands cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. The writ petition stands allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1694
... ...
... ... ..... e respondents to release the goods in question, on the petitioner fulfilling the following conditions The petitioner shall pay 50 of the differential duty, and for the balance amount, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond. On compliance of both the conditions, the respondents shall release the goods in question, forthwith. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to pass final orders, on completion of the adjudication process, in respect of the payment of customs duty, liable to be paid by the petitioner, if any, and to initiate other appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, if he is found to have evaded payment of the customs duty, as alleged by the respondents, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The petitioner shall co-operate, fully, in the proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents, for the assessment of customs duty. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1608
Suspension of CHA licence - time limitation - Held that: - The instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are binding on the Department. The time stipulations in the Circular are apparently directory and not mandatory, as will be evident from the language and tenor thereof. Furthermore, the Circular does not provide for the consequences of failure to adhere to the time schedule - There can be no doubt that a Custom House Agent cannot be kept under indefinite suspension without initiating necessary proceedings. Necessary proceedings would have to be initiated forthwith and concluded with utmost expedition - applications disposed off.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1607
... ...
... ... ..... . Krishna Prasad,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv., Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The appeals are admitted.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1605
... ...
... ... ..... order dated 1.2.11. No compliance report has also been filed after recording of the report of the Registrar. As such, all the four appeals are dismissed for non-compliance of the4 direction of pre-deposit under the provision of Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1591
Whether the provisions of Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with and the offer to the accused that he could be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate had not made to him?
Whether there was no evidence to show as to when the sample had been sent to the laboratory, as the forwarding letter dated 26th February, 1998, of the Superintendent of Police (Exhibits P20 and P21) sent along with the samples did not explain why the samples had reached the laboratory on the 9th March, 1998 and it was not thus clear where the samples had remained between the 26t February, 1998 and 9th March, 1998?
-
2011 (3) TMI 1589
Appearance of representative of petitioner - Held that: - the representative of the Petitioner will appear before Mr. Navraj Goyal, Deputy Commissioner, Inland Container Depot, Tuglakabad on 10th March 2011 at 3.00 pm and the necessary sample will be drawn in his presence and sent to any of the Agmark testing centres in terms of Circular 33 (RE)-2008/2004-09 dated 30th September 2008 - petition disposed off.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1584
Denial of refund claim - whether the refund of fine and penalty is subject to doctrine of unjust enrichment.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1577
... ...
... ... ..... ration of value of description of the imported goods viz. “diamonds” which were freely importable? C. Whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from non-application of mind for its erroneous finding that the Commissioner confiscated the diamonds under Section 111(o), whereas in fact Commissioner did not invoke Section 111(o) for confiscation of “diamonds” as the said provisions was invoked for confiscation of “gold” only? D. Whether the Tribunal’s order is non-speaking for its failure to record any finding on the shortage of ‘gold’, though the order records the submissions and the binding precedents cited by the appellant, particularly when the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority? E. Whether the Tribunal erred in confirming the penalty on the appellant a juridical person, though the penalty on the Managing Director was set aside? 3. Interim stay rejected. 4. Mr. Sethna waives service for the respondents.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1570
... ...
... ... ..... otes 5(B)(b) and 5(B)(c) of Chapter 84 and therefore in view of Note 5(D) it is classifiable under Heading 8471 only. Further Tariff Item 8471 60 26 specifically covers Laser Jet Printer. Such being the case the item cannot be taken to Heading 8443 for Printing machinery used for printing by means of the printing type, blocks, plates, cylinders and other printing components of Heading 8442. This machine does not make use of printing type, blocks, plates, cylinders and other printing components of Heading 8442. 14. So the impugned printer is clearly classifiable under Tariff Item 8471 60 26. The fact that the rate of duty under this Tariff Item is zero cannot be a reason to give distorted meanings to descriptions in each Heading and Tariff items and the Chapter Notes and Interpretative Rules to somehow deny the benefit provided in the tariff. 15. Therefore the Appeal is rejected by upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeal). (Pronounced in Open Court on 23-2-2011)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1567
... ...
... ... ..... nged in the past, it has been well established practice to allow import of goods for which firm contracts have been entered into by importers with suppliers abroad. It is this simple principle which is being implemented through DGFT Notification No. 32/2006. Once the import has become allowable under this notification, an enquiry into the fact whether the date of Bill of Lading was fraudulently corrected from 5-2-2006 to 1-2-2006 is an irrelevant issue. When the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification 32 dated 11th Sept. 2006 irrespective of the disputed dates, the goods are not restricted goods. The provisions of Section 111(d) and (m) are not invokable in this case as the goods are not restricted goods. Therefore, they are not liable for confiscation and there is no question of any redemption fine and penalty. With these observations, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated & pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1565
... ...
... ... ..... above we pass the following orders,- (i) All the goods including Indian Currency seized from M/s. Omkar Jewellers and subsequently confiscated should be provisionally released to them on payment of an amount of ₹ 16.75 lakhs and also after execution of a bond for provisional release with an undertaking to comply with the final orders in their Appeal. (ii) All the goods including Indian Currency seized from M/s. Orbit Gold and subsequently confiscated should be provisionally released to them on payment of an amount of ₹ 3.25 lakhs and also after execution of a bond for provisional release with an undertaking to comply with the final orders in their Appeal. 20. The goods should be released to the Appellants within seven days of payment of amounts as above and execution of bonds. 21. Collection of all penalties imposed on the Appellants under the impugned order is stayed during the pendency of the Appeal. 22. Compliance shall be reported on 28-3-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1563
... ...
... ... ..... penalty has been imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the assessees had sought clarification from the DGFT regarding requirement of coverage under a licence as the machines were shipped prior to the date of release of the new EXIM policy under which restrictions on the age of machine were lifted and the office of the Dy. DGFT has clarified that in the case of the present appellants, date on which Bill of Entry has been filed should be considered as the cut off date for deciding the importability of the item and not the Bill of Lading, in general, for import effected with the payment of duty and not under any of the export promotion scheme. In this view of the matter, in the circumstances of this particular case, we hold that licence was not required for the import of shuttleless loom imported by the appellants, and set aside confiscation and penalty and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1517
... ...
... ... ..... n that case. Therefore, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee. Admittedly, in this case also there is no allegation against the appellants that they have obtained export obligation discharge certificate by way of fraud, concealment of facts or mis-representation or mis-declaration. The certificate from DGFT was after verifying the facts that the appellants have fulfilled the conditions of the notification. Hence, following the decision of Air Travel Bureau Ltd. (supra), we find that in these matters also the appellants have been able to discharge their export obligation and obtained the certificate from DGFT after following the provisions of law. Accordingly, no case can be made out against the appellant for violation of customs notifications. In view of the above submissions following the decision of Air Travel Bureau Ltd. (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow all the four appeals of the appellants with consequential relief. Pronounced in open Court.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1499
Classification of “Dant Manjan Lal” (DML) - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against assessee.
........
|
