|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 182 Records
-
2015 (9) TMI 1743 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Determination of the property tax - notification dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P-3) fixing the rates of property tax - whether the notification dated 11.10.2013 fixing the rate of tax is in accordance with the provisions of Section 87(1)(a) of the Act?
HELD THAT:- The State legislature is competent to make the provisions of law as applicable retrospectively. In the present case, Section 21 of the amending Act, validates the notification issued on 30.9.2003 and 21.6.2012. Therefore, it is not a retrospective imposition of tax, but validating of the action taken earlier i.e. the notification dated 30.9.2003 and 21.6.2012. The notification dated 11.10.2013, has been issued in terms of Section 87(3) and Section 149(1) of the Act. The levy of tax and rates have been made applicable from the Financial Year 2010-11 but with a further option that the property owners have the option to pay the same as per the new or old policy, whichever is opted by them.
Therefore, it is open to the owners to opt for the rates, which were prevailing prior to the publication of the notification on 11.10.2013. It is not a retrospective taxation, but an option has been given to pay the tax as per the old policy or the new provisions. Thus, the Notification dated 11.10.2013 is not contrary to the provisions of the Statute.
Petition dismissed.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1662 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Imported of second hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines - Single member bench of HC allowed the writ petition [2012 (4) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] by directing the such goods may be directed to be released, on payment of the appropriate customs duty and on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by law - Revenue contended that, the judgement of Supreme Court was not correctly interpreted in the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE VERSUS M/S. CITY OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND OTHERS [2013 (4) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- The matter being covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. City Office Equipment, these appeals are liable to be dismissed in terms of the said judgment.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1595 - SC ORDER
Confiscation of goods u/s 111 - Freezing of bank account - Smuggling of goods - the decision in the case of M/s. Ravi Crop Science Versus Union of India & Others [2015 (4) TMI 888 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that appellant has failed to explain the source of the imported goods sale proceeds whereof were credited into the bank account which has been frozen. The onus was/is on the appellant to explain the transactions in the said bank account and to establish that the said transactions were/are not tainted - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1594 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Detention of property - property in the nature of a factory with plant and machinery - order of attachment - recovery of outstanding dues of the Customs Department - liability of last owner - The main grounds raised in the petition are that the authorities have no power under Section 142(1) of the Customs Act to take any such action. The action is otherwise arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The property was purchased by the petitioner by paying full sale consideration which was executed by the receiver appointed by DRT. The petitioner is, therefore, not liable to discharge any liabilities of the past owner.
Held that: - there is fair amount of commonality in the persons representing the erstwhile owner company and the present petitioner company. We may recall that the present sale deed was executed between the said two entities. One Shri Suresh Ramnani is shown to be an additional Director of the erstwhile company who of course ceased to be as such w.e.f. 30-3-2011. Ms. Kajal Suresh Ramnani, wife of Suresh Ramani, is one of the subscriber of the petitioner company. Mr. Suresh Ramnani himself is also one of the subscribers. It is also pointed out that one Mr. Prem V. Ramnani was the Director of the erstwhile company as well as the subscriber of the present company. Another person Mr. Vishandas Ramnani who is also the subscriber of the petitioner company has shown the same address as Mr. Suresh Ramnani, Additional Director of the erstwhile company. Even though, therefore, being legal entities, we may not employ the principle of lifting of the veil and treat both the companies as a clock of each other their transaction must be seen with the degree of circumspection.
There cannot be prospective dues of the outstanding taxes. It must refer to the period anterior to the date of execution of the sale deed. Even on this count, the petitioner cannot escape the liability to be answerable to the Customs Department for the past dues of the erstwhile owner. The contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner agreed to discharge only the liabilities arising after the date of the sale deed, is not in consonance with the language used in Clause 3 of Para 15 of the sale deed.
Before Section 11E was added to the Central Excise Act, the view prevailing as propounded by the Supreme Court was that in absence of any statutory recognition of a prior charge, dues of the Customs or the Central Excise Department would not prevail over the dues of the secured creditors. Section 11E of the Central Excise Act now provided that the dues of the department will have priority over the case of the secured creditors. Departmental dues would not have priority over the dues of the secured creditor. The question of applicability of Section 11E in the present case, certainly would have been one of the issues to be tackled. In this context, the question would immediately arise whether in view of Rule 9 of the Customs (Attachment) Rules, in face of the attachment imposed by the Customs Department the property could have been sold at all - However, when purchaser itself, as noted, agreed to discharge such dues, this question bales into insignificance.
There was no serious delay on part of the department so as to defeat public deeds.
The subsequent owner had agreed to discharge the dues of the erstwhile owner, the question whether it was the property of the business which was sold need not be gone into - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1558 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Permission to be accompanied by his lawyer when petitioner goes to the DRI Office for interrogation under Section 108 of CA, 1962 - Held that: - The petitioner would be permitted to be accompanied by his counsel to DRI Office when he next goes there for being interrogated under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel accompanying the petitioner would be allowed to be present at the time of interrogation but only within the visible distance but beyond the range of audibility - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1528 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Duty drawback - denial on the ground that the goods imported were “Lavender Flower” and the goods exported were “Cotton Neck Pillows”. In terms of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 the goods imported should be identical to the goods exported - Held that: - the tariff heading under which each of these items has been classified changed from “Lavender Flower” under Customs Tariff Heading 0603 90 00 to “Cotton Neck Pillows” under Customs Tariff Heading 6217 90 90. In terms of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 only those goods which are capable of being easily identifiable and which after being imported into India, are exported within two years of importation, are identified to the satisfaction of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs as the goods which were imported earlier are entitled for drawback - In the instant case, the criterion is not satisfied at the time of exportation, because the goods exported are clearly not the same goods which were imported.
In any case ignorance of law is no excuse not to follow something which is required to be done by the law in a particular manner.
Revision application rejected - decided against applicant.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1525 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Duty drawback - brand rate - subsequent exported goods had been notified under list of All Industry Rate - filing of supplementary claim - Whether the supplementary drawback claim filed u/r 15 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 by M/s. Cummins India Ltd. is hit by limitation or not? - Held that: - the relevant date for the purpose of limitation under Rule 15 ibid is the date of settlement and payment of original drawback claims by the proper officer and not the date of Order-in-Original No. 31/2010-11, dated 21-3-2011 as passed by the Commissioner for recovery of excess drawback paid. As the claims were not filed within three months from the respective date of settlement of the original claims, the supplementary claims have rightly been held as time-barred by the original authority in the impugned Orders-in-Original dated 1-6-2011.
Whether limitation period for filing supplementary drawback claim under Rule 15 ibid can be relaxed by exercise of authority under Rule 17 ibid? - Held that: - Government holds that the powers given u/r 17 ibid are beyond the scope of powers to be exercised under Section 129DD of the Act. As such mention of Central Government in Rule 17 ibid does not refer to Joint Secretary, Revision Application or empower him on behalf of Central Government for the purpose of Rule 17 ibid.
Government observes that the Commissioner (Appeals) exercises quasi-judicial authority u/s 128A of the Customs Act, 1962 being the first level of appeal against orders passed by officers lower in rank than a Commissioner of Customs. It would thus be beyond the scope of the powers conferred by the said Section for the Commissioner (Appeals) to exercise authority under a Section or a Rule for which he is not empowered. Hence, Government holds that in allowing relaxation u/r 17 ibid, the Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his statutory jurisdiction.
The supplementary drawback claim was clearly time-barred in terms of Rule 15 ibid; and Commissioner (Appeals)’s order is not just and proper in holding that the claim cannot be treated as time-barred in reference to Rule 17 and has erred in directing the lower authority to admit the claim and process it as per law.
Revision allowed.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1523 - SC ORDER
Suspension of CHA licence - procedure - acts of violation and misconduct - the decision in the case of The Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port Import) Versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And Others [2014 (7) TMI 671 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that The compliance of procedure under Regulation 20 would not tantamount the compliance of Regulation under 22 and therefore, the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals are answered in negative against the appellant - the present appeal dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1499 - SC ORDER
Duties, functions and obligations of custodian appointed under section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, - cost recovery charges for custom staff posted at the new Perishable Cargo - Regulation 5(2) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 - Regulation ultra vires to section 157 and 158 of the Customs Act, 1962 - decision in the case of M/s. Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. Versus The Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue And Others [2014 (10) TMI 508 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - applications for withdrawing the special leave petitions is allowed and the special leave petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1495 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of appeal - delay in filing appeal - the decision in the case of M/s COASTAL ENERGY PVT LTD AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX [2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE] referred - Held that: - The Civil Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1480 - SC ORDER
Scope of exemption notification No.13/2010-Cus - Appeal devoid of merits is dismissed - the decision in the case of M/s GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2014 (11) TMI 529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] confirmed.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1473 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Confiscation of consignments under Section 11(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - option to pay redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - imposition of penalty Section 112 ibid - classification of export consignment - pet bottle scrap waste falling under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 - Hazardous Waste like plastic scrap containing bottles, wrappers, plastic etc - permission of Ministry of Environment and Forests was required to import the waste as per Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary) Rules, 2008.
Held that: - on examination, the goods were found different from the description of goods declared in the Bill of Entry. Thus, there is a mis-declaration of goods and confiscation U/S 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified.
Regarding the quantum of redemption fine and penalty it was found that that the appellant purchased the goods on high seas sale basis from M/s Jay Disha Impex Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of contract entered into between them. It is noted that the appellant is a user of pet bottles scrap and had been importing such goods regularly. There is no case of mis-declaration regarding import of the said goods. Further, there is no material available on record that the appellant had any knowledge of mis-declaration of goods. Also, appellant themselves noticed the discrepancy regarding declaration of goods on the Bill of Lading and requested for first check vide letter dated 22.02.2013 - imposition of penalty not warranted - redemption fine reduced to ₹ 25,000/-.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1453 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Levy of penalty for abetment - involvement of smuggling of goods- intact garments in the name of old completely pre-mutilated garments would be fraudulently cleared from ICD, Tughlakabad (TKD), even without examination by Customs Authority. - Held that:- The appellant is manager of M/s Quick Clearing Agency, CHA and a partner in M/s PH Logistics in which the other partner was Mr. Narendra Singh. He directly and actively participated in the smuggling in this case is evident from para 46.4 of the impugned order, the contents of which are not being repeated here for brevity. The said para clearly brings out that as per the appellant s own statement - Having regard to the nature of impugned goods and in view of the fact that their value was ₹ 1.13 crores, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority is not unreasonable or arbitrary. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the appellant.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1392 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of differential duty - Levy of CVD on MRP basis - undervaluation - Confiscation u/s 111(m) - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that:- Following decision of assessee's own previous case [2015 (9) TMI 761 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1370 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Undue benefit of Target Plus Scheme (TPS) - Export of cut and polished diamonds (CPD) without value addition - warehousing of imported CPD - it is alleged that after import, the goods were taken into private bonded warehouse and without processing the same were removed for export within 3-4 hours or the next day as the case may be. - Rejection of declared FOB value of diamonds - Penalty u/s 114 - Misdeclaration - contravention of the provisions of Section 14 and Section 50 of the Act read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule 11 & Rule 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993.
Held that:- Commissioner has not relied upon any evidence to show that minimum value addition of 5% or more cannot be achieved by such processes. The show cause notice also does not refer to any evidence on this point - if diamonds are segregated into a homogenous lot based on their size and quality, the value shall change even by employing simple labour intensive processes like sieving, boiling and assorting. The only piece of evidence we find on the relationship between the value addition and the process is in the form of representation made by Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council vide letter dated 23.10.2006 which relies on the same Circular of the CBEC while dealing with the various schemes in the Policy affecting the business of gem and jewellery including diamond industry. We are informed that the Customs Officers in charge of the bonded warehouse on being satisfied, have also cancelled the bonds, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the Commissioner.
Section 14 of the Act provides that where duty is chargeable on ad valorem basis, the value shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation as the case may be in the course of international trade. There is no dispute about the CIF value declared by the Indian companies in the bills of entry. Rather such CIF value has been adopted by the Commissioner, to be the correct FOB value. We shall deal with this aspect later in detail when dealing with circular trading. Value addition is a concept under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).
On the question of valuation, the Commissioner also records that evidences disclosed in the show-cause notice, there is an allegation that the FOB value declared is not genuine on account of control by AEL over all the overseas parties involved in the transactions as buyers or sellers of diamonds. Having recorded this objection, the Commissioner does not give any categorical finding thereon but instead treads into the question of circular trading. We therefore prefer to deal with this issue in the context of valuation and circular trading as the department has also heavily relied upon the allegations in the show cause notice on the inter relationship between AEL and other Indian companies as well as AEL and overseas entities.
There is no allegation of common shareholding except for the subsidiaries. It is also not shown that AEL has the power to appoint Directors or control the composition of Board of Directors of companies in which its employees or its Directors are also partners or Directors. It is not shown that AEL holds sufficient shares or voting power to control the decisions of the entities in which its Directors are also Directors or in which its employees are also Directors or Partners. Mutuality of interest must be proved both ways. It is interest in the business of each other which proves that the parties are related. The inquiries made through the Indian High Commission, Singapore or Indian Consulate in Dubai have not brought out any such factual position on either shareholding pattern or control over the composition of the Board of Directors of the overseas entities except the two subsidiaries.
As long as price of exports to independent parties in respect of whom there is no allegation of relationship is available, the same would apply to all other exports including those made to related persons. This is notwithstanding the fact that the department has failed to discharge the onus of proving relationship between AEL and overseas entities - department has failed in discharging the burden cast upon it to produce any tangible evidence in respect of the charge of over-valuation or circular trading. For the same reason, the judgment in Steel India Company vs. CCE, [2014 (12) TMI 1035 - CESTAT MUMBAI] is of no assistance to the department. - declared FOB value is accepted to be the correct FOB value under Section 14 of the Act and to that extent the order of the Commissioner is set aside.
Stand of the department in the show-cause notice to be self-contradictory. If the same lot is circulated into India a number of times, it is only rational to take the CIF value only once for the same lot to support the allegation of circular trading. By not doing so, and by accepting the CIG value of each individual consignments of imported diamonds, the department has admitted each consignment to be different from the other, and not of the same goods, thereby militating against their own case of circular trading. The Indian companies contend and rightly so, that the implications of acceptance of CIF value means each time a new consignment has been imported unrelated to any other in the past or future, duly corroborated by remittance of foreign exchange through banks or authorised dealers equal to the value of the goods received in India. Correspondingly in relation to exports, receipt of foreign exchange through banks and authorised dealers as proceeds of exports in compliance with the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
Payment of commission would be relevant for calculating the value addition if and when the pending applications for grant of duty free scrip under TPS is taken up by the competent authority. - Section 114 of the Act does not create vicarious liability. It is an action in personam. It is therefore necessary to show how each of these individuals acted in a manner which resulted in mis-declaration of FOB value to render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(i). We find no justification has been provided by the Commissioner in the order. The statement of these individuals are exculpatory, besides not being adversely implicated by others. In any case, we have set aside penalties on all concerned as aforesaid. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1369 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Denial of exemption claim - Served From India Scheme - Whether the benefit of exemption notification No.92/2004-Cus. dt. 10.9.94 availed by the appellant in respect of import of restricted goods i.e. Radars, Navigational Equipments, VHF Equipments & DME Equipments etc. under SFIS is correct or otherwise - The appellants contention that DGFTs clarification on import/export shall prevail over customs and customs authority cannot interpret the policy is not at all relevant to the facts of this case - Held that:- There is no dispute on the fact that the goods, Radars & VHF & DME are restricted items under ITC (HS) EXIM code and there is no dispute on the fact that para 3.6.4.5 of FTP 2004-09 (RE-2006) stipulated that SFIS can be utilized for customs duty adjustment only on the goods which are freely importable and not to any restricted items. - It is relevant to state that as rightly held by the adjudicating authority in his findings at para-30 of order that the department has not challenged the importability of impugned goods under FTP but the dispute is restricted to payment of customs duty on the restricted goods through SFIS scrip under the Notification 92/2004. The appellants are entitled to utilize the SFIS scrips for import of any capital goods which are freely importable. That being the case, there is no overlapping of power of DGFT or Customs vice versa.
It is a fact that SFIS scrips are issued based on foreign exchange remittance received over previous years and the DGFT issued the SFIS scrips to appellant on 4.7.2006 and utilization of scrip should be as per the condition of FTP as existed on the date of import. It is a settled law that any clause policy provision should be strictly enforceable prospectively w.e.f. from the date of such amendment. In the present case, para 3.6.4.5 of FTP 2004-09 (Re-2006) w.e.f. 1.4.2006 stipulates the utilization of SFIS scrip for customs duty only on the freely importable goods and the customs notification 92/2002 allows exemption as per the policy in force. Therefore, there is no promissory estoppel attracted in the present case.
SFIS scrip should not allowed to be used for payment of customs duty on the Restricted goods i.e. on Radars, Navigational Equipments, VHF & OME Equipments which are restricted for import under ITC (HS) EXIM code and the exemption provided under Notfn 92/2002-Cus. Is not applicable for use of SFIS scrip for adjustment of customs duty on import of the said restricted goods.
Assessee inadvertently utilized the said SFIS scrips for payment of Customs duty towards import of Radars, and other equipments which are restricted items under policy. The Executive Director in his statement clearly admitted before the Department that they agreed to pay the entire customs duty and they paid the entire customs duty voluntarily under various TR challans. These facts are on record and the same cannot be brushed aside or ignored as there are voluntary statements from responsible senior executives persons in charge of Finance & Planning including the Executive Director Finance and are fully aware of the legal provisions of FTP and Customs exemptions notifications. Therefore, the adjudicating authority rightly denied the exemption under Notfn 92/2004. - Demand of duty confirmed.
Confiscation and redemption fine - Held that:- When the goods are not available for confiscation, by respectfully following the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court decisions [2012 (9) TMI 386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and [2008 (4) TMI 320 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH], we hold that the appellants are not liable for redemption fine.
Levy of penalty u/s 112 - held that:- considering the overall circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that appellant paid entire customs duty during investigation itself and before issue of SCN reduction in penalty is warranted in respect of imports made through Chennai and Mumbai. - penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1368 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Maintainability of appeal - Seizure of goods - Section 110(A) - whether the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner under section 110(A) of the Customs Act 1962 lies before the Tribunal or not - Held that:- From the provisions of Section 110A of the Act it is a clear mandate that under section 110A the decision is to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority for imposing conditions for release of seized goods provisionally. - any person aggrieved by decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority may appeal to this Tribunal. Therefore, under section 110A the order of provisional release is being passed by Commissioner Customs as adjudicating authority and aggrieved from the said order appeal can be filed before this Tribunal under section 129 A(1) of the Act.
With these observations, we are not in agreement with the decision of the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 138 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and same is required to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench.
Registry is directed to place the records before the Hon'ble President for consideration and to constitute the Larger Bench of this Tribunal to decide subject issue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1367 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Classification of product – basmati Rice or Not – Whether rice exported by appellant was Basmati Rice or not as per Serial No. 45 AA, as amended, of notification no. 93/RE-2007/2004-2009 – Held that:- according to restrictions imposed as per serial no. 45AA, grain of rice should be more than 6.61mm of length and ratio of length to breadth of grain shall be more than 3.5 – There was no definition of Basmati Rice in notification and there was also no stipulation that inspite of satisfying size still rice can be Non-Basmati Rice – Therefore all Rice Categories being sold as Basmati Rice in Commercial Parlance and having dimension mentioned in notification will not be covered as restricted category of Basmati Rice – Nowhere in DGFT Policy, it was mentioned that if grain size restrictions were satisfied then Agmark authority’s opinion will be Final Say on classification of Basmati Rice – Supreme Court in case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh [2010 (7) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] opined that Provisions of Statute had to be given full effect to Legislative intent to achieve intended objective – Therefore in view of said observations Confiscation order was not justified and order set aside – Decided in favour of Assesse.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1366 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Classification - Whether the fuel oil containing in the engine room tanks is classifiable under heading No. 27.10 or the Vessels under heading as 89.08 of the Customs Tariff Act - Held that:- Gujarat High Court in the recent decision in the case of Priya Holding P Ltd (2012 (11) TMI 532 - Gujarat High Court) held that once the fuel oil contained in the bunker i.e., engine room tanks, falls within the ambit of sub para (b), as a natural corollary the same would be classifiable along with the vessel under 89.08 of the Heading No. 89.07 of the Customs Tariff Act. - impugned order cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1365 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Whether the fuel oil containing in the engine room tanks is classifiable under heading No. 27.10 or the Vessels under heading as 89.08 of the Customs Tariff Act - Held that:- Gujarat High Court in the recent decision in the case of Priya Holding P Ltd (2012 (11) TMI 532 - Gujarat High Court) held that once the fuel oil contained in the bunker i.e., engine room tanks, falls within the ambit of sub para (b), as a natural corollary the same would be classifiable along with the vessel under 89.08 of the Heading No. 89.07 of the Customs Tariff Act. - impugned order cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
