Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2017 2017 2017 (11) Customs - 2017 (11) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 201 to 204 of 204 Records

• 2017 (11) TMI 46
  

  Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - date of offence report - time limitation - Held that: - The Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. Vs. CC (Imports), Chennai [2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] examined the scope of the “offence report”. After noting the provisions of regulation and scope of implication of offence report, the Hon’ble High Court concluded that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner with a copy to the Commissioner should be taken as a date of receipt of offence report. Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date.

  In the present case, the SCN dated 20.05.2013 was issued to the appellant with a copy marked to the office of the Commissioner as well as to the notice board of the DRI and the Commissioner. Following the ratio of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the said SCN construed as offence report as the present proceedings are of the same set of facts/offences alleged against the appellant. Since the said SCN was dated 20.05.2013 and the proceedings under CBLR was initiated by notice dated 12.08.2016, the proceedings are substantially delayed and the same is in violation of Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 45
  

  Rectification of mistake - Penalty u/s 114A - Held that: - there is no apparent mistake in the subject Final Order of the Tribunal, which could be rectified by accepting the present ROM. The appellant actually wants us to re-appreciate and reconsider their submissions and arguments by way of ROM application, which is not allowed by law - The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Belapur, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised, when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious - ROM Application not allowed.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 44
  

  Penalty u/s 117 of CA, 1962 on CHA - Short paid duty by importer - Held that: - there is no lapse on the part of the appellant as the changes were not updated in the system and the appellants have only filed a Bill of Entry on behalf of their client and they have taken proper care to file the Bill of Entry and therefore there is no lapse on their part so as to impose penalty for the fault of the system which has not been updated as on the date of filing of the Bill of Entry - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 28
  

  Refund claim - finality of assessment - Held that: - Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd [2016 (3) TMI 431 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has dealt with similar issue which is present in the case in hand, where it was held that there was indeed no assessment order as such passed by the customs authorities. Although under Section 2(ii) of the Act, the word ‘assessment’ includes a self-assessment, the clearance of the goods upon filing of the B/E and payment of duty is not per se an 'assessment order' in the context of Section 27(1)(i) as it stood prior to 8th April 2011, particularly if such duty has not been paid under protest - Even the CBEC circular presented by DR (No. 17/2011-Customs, dated 08.04.2011) may not carry Revenue's case any further as the said circular explains the factual position as to assessment prior to 4/2011 and the law on this has already been settled by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

1 ....7891011