|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 233 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 1669
Classification of Coal - The coal so imported were claimed to be steam coal, which never attracted any duty during the material period - Held that:- Different Benches of this Tribunal, have taken different views at the instance of the parties. Finally, the matter has reached to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MARUTI ISPAT AND ENERGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX [2014 (10) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where the matter is sub-judice - Without the final verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present appeals cannot be decided.
The Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hatsun Agro Products Ltd. & Others v. Commr. of Customs, Tuticorin [............................] has taken an identical issue and held that liberty is granted to the applicants/assessees to come again before this Tribunal after having the final verdict from the Apex Court, within the prescribed time.
We also grant a liberty to the appellants to come again after having final verdict from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, within the prescribed time, if advised so - appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1667
Classification of imported goods - Incense stick 8’ MM 9” MM “Incense stick (unperfumed)” - whether classified under CTH 3307 41 00 or otherwise? - benefit of CVD exemption under N/N. 46/2011, dated 1-6-2011 - Held that:- The Customs Tariff Heading 3307 41 00 covers agarbatti and other odoriferous preparation which are operated by burning. The imported goods, though described as incense stick, are unperfumed and hence, cannot be covered by the above customs tariff heading since they cannot be considered as odoriferous preparation. That rules out their classification under Heading 3307 41 00 - the benefit of CVD exemption under N/N. 46/2011, dated 1-6-2011 will not be available to the imported goods.
Undervaluation - no evidence of contemporaneous import - Held that:- The Commissioner (A) has recorded that the Department has not given any evidence of contemporaneous import for reassessing the value - decision upheld.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1662
Levy of Customs duty on impermissible wastage limit - Held that:- Law requires that customs duty forgone in respect of impermissible wastage shall be realizable. Accordingly learned authority is correct to realize such duty on the impermissible quantum of wastage occurred.
Penalty u/s 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- The authority has not found presence of any of the ingredients of penal provision for such levy. Therefore there shall be no penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962.
Penalty u/s 117 of CA - Held that:- There appears no prohibition of law to import the goods at the time of import. But there was wastage of imported goods beyond the SION norm. Therefore it cannot be construed that there was breach of the norm at the time of import - penalty set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1651
Release of goods on payment of redemption fine - Gold - Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - Only prohibited goods cannot be released on payment of redemption fine. Admittedly, the gold in question is not prohibited goods under the Customs Act or any other law in force - the goods in question cannot be absolutely confiscated in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1643
Provisional release of goods - prohibited goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act - Held that: - since the bill of entry was filed as early as on 06.06.2017 and as of now, the examination has been done by the authorities, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for provisional release of goods, which are not prohibited and where there are no other issues including IPR issues - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1630
Maintainability of appeal - no readjudication order has been passed - Held that: - Normally, Tribunal does not pass order of any kind when an appeal is not maintainable. But this is an extreme case of hardship caused to the appellant, which calls for above order in exercise of power conferred on Tribunal under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. It may be appreciated that courts are not powerless to render justice since a litigant cannot be remediless.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1627
Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of CCR 2004 read with N/N. 27/2004-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 - Held that: - at the time of availment of Cenvat credit, the same has not been disputed, therefore, the refund claim also cannot be denied now - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1622
Provisional release of detained goods - small brown irregular cut pieces of nuts - Held that: - there will be a direction to the respondents to release the subject consignment by provisionally assessing the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the goods have been detained at the instance of the DRI for investigation, in law, the petitioner should be entitled to the detention certificate for the relevant period - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1612
Maintainability of petition - vires of Annexure-III to the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - decision in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Versus Union Of India And Others [1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME Court] referred, where it was held that The Tribunals created under article 323A and article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.
Held that: - The power of the CESTAT to consider challenge to the vires of a subordinate legislation flows not from the CTA but the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra). In the said judgment the Supreme Court discussed the powers of the Administrative Tribunals (ATs) constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Article 323B (2) (b) envisages the creation of Tribunals to adjudicate on issues concerning import and export across customs frontiers. There can be no manner of doubt that the CESTAT is one such Tribunal described under Article 323B (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. In relation to both types of Tribunals, the above observations of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar would hold good.
Petition dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1603
Valuation - rejection of declared value - case of Revenue is that the invoices recovered by the officers of DRI during investigation with reference to another importer is for similar goods and hence original authority validly relied on the same and by invoking Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules redetermined the assessable value - Held that: - There should be reason to hold that the invoices filed with the Bill of Entry is not bonafide reflecting the true transaction value. Thereafter, evidence to the effect that the value of comparable goods can be considered under Rule 8 on satisfactory fulfillment of various criteria like similarity of goods, similarity of transaction level, period etc. None of these issues were discussed at length in the present order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1572
Import of restricted item - Waste and scrap - confiscation - Held that: - There is no dispute that the other waste and scrap under CTH 76020090 is restricted item and the appellant imported without any valid license and therefore, confiscation of the goods is justified.
Redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - It is seen that the lower authority had considered the submissions of the appellant and had given the finding in detail - the redemption fine and penalty is reduced - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1571
Compromise and arrangements - Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order - Claim against respondent company in Liquidation - rejection on the ground that the order dated 10.05.2011 was passed by the custom authorities without informing the Official Liquidator of the proceedings pending before it.
Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Sales Tax Officer Versus Byford Ltd. [1982 (5) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI], where it was held that the recovery proceedings can be stayed by the company judge. But not the penalty proceedings - Since the facts of the present case, are similar to the facts of the cases cited above, hence once after inviting claim of the custom authority; asking it to file it in proper format with documents, the Official Liquidator should not have rejected it on grounds that it ought to have been given an opportunity to contest the custom duty/penalty levied upon the respondent company by Custom authorities; the duty/penalty having been levied upon the respondent company under the provisions of Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 by following a procedure established by law.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Customs Authorities.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1570
Advance License Scheme - non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) - Held that: - Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GLS Film Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 723 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that matter needs to be remanded awaiting the decision of DGFT and produce the copy of the same - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to await decision of the DGFT authorities and decide the matter thereof - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1569
Penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - non-payment of service tax - the appellant sold the SKO other than PDS, due to utmost emergency to Govt. organization - Held that: - It is a well settled law that in the matter of imposition of penalty, the conduct and/or attending extenuating circumstances are material and relevant - In the present case, the appellant had not disputed the payment of duty which they have paid upon notice. The conduct of the appellant could not show to invoke the ingredients as mentioned u/s 114A of the CA, 1962 - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1568
Revocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - smuggling of Red Sanders wood, a prohibited item - violation of Regulation 13(a) and 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 - Held that: - there was no involvement of the appellant in the attempt of illegal export of Red Sanders. Further, the appellant co-operated with the investigating officers - revocation of license and forfeiture of the security deposit at this stage is excessive and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1567
Absolute confiscation - import of Raw Hide Skin - fake and fictitious documents - Held that: - the Customs Officers tried to identify the owner of the goods and no one turned up with proper evidence - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1511
Concessional rate of duty - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. - import of Glazed News Print - it emerged that the commodity was news print with surface roughness of 1.9 / 1.8 and 1.7 / 1.6 respectively. It appeared to the department that the imported consignments did not satisfy the condition of Chapter Note 4 for Chapter 48, whereby the Parker Print Surface roughness should exceed 2.5 microns - Held that: - The samples tested conformed to all specifications of news print except for the surface roughness. The imported items being Glazed News Print, it cannot be expected to have surface of Parker Print Surface roughness of more than 2.50 microns. By glazing the ordinary news print, its roughness gets reduced and therefore the specifications given with regard to standard news print cannot be applied to them of glazed newsprint - further, There is no dispute that the goods imported fall under Chapter 48.
As the Chapter Notes are entitled to consideration in deciding the matter of classification of particular goods, nonetheless, when it comes to extending effective rate of duty, the intention of the legislature will certainly have to be given paramount importance and supremacy over even Chapter notes. Further, there is no dispute that the imported goods have been used as Glazed paper for the cover of the magazine published by them.
The imported goods are eligible for the benefit of exemption under said entry Sl.No.154 of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1510
Classification of imported goods - Titanium Pipes and Fittings of various sizes and dimensions - Appellants had sought to clear the items as parts of Bi Polar Membrane Electrolyser - Revenue claimed that goods were classified under CTH 81089090 - whether the impugned items can be considered as parts of the Membrane Electrolyser imported separately by the appellants, or otherwise? - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. Sl. No. 285, as amended - Held that: - entry No. 285, as amended, does indicate that the exemption thereat extends to parts thereof including secondary brine purification components, jumper switches, filtering elements for hydrogen filters etc. Evidently, parts of Membrane Electrolyser will also get notification benefit - Admittedly, the imported titanium pipes and fittings are not specially designed or created to work as integral part of the Membrane Electrolyser. They are only generic items which have been obtained to complete the functioning of the imported Membrane Electrolyser. At the most, it can be brought within the ambit of accessory, but certainly not as a part or a component.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Insulation Electrical (P) Ltd. [2008 (3) TMI 22 - Supreme court] has elucidated the meaning and scope of part and held that manufacturing of "Rail Assembly Frost Seat Adjuster and Assembly Slider Seat" is classifiable as accessories to the motor vehicle under 8708.00. It can not be classified as 'parts' of seats, as claimed by the revenue - Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court, we are not able to appreciate how the titanium pipes and fittings which are generic products made in standard sizes obtained from another supplier and another country can be considered as a specifically designed for the Membrane Electrolyser part which is essential and integrated with the Membrane Electrolyser separately imported.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1509
Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 CUS - whether the Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly held that the importer has imported sheet of Mirror of 1.8mm and sold the goods with description of 2.0mm, did not create any confusion that the goods which were imported are not the same, which were sold by the respondent? - Held that: - From the description it is evident than they have sold 2.0mm mirror and the size mentioned therein 60 x 90 mentioned matches the size in the Bill of Entry. Further, the description IMP in the invoices stand for imported. Further, in the tax invoice it is mentioned that no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under Sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be admissible in respect of the above goods - there is no material difference in mentioning the glass imported as 1.8mm Aluminium Coated Glass Sheet Mirror as 2.0mm mirror imported at the time of resale in the tax invoice - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1508
100% EOU - appellant imported capital goods under N/N. 31/81-Cus. Appellant had sought an exemption for being a 100% EOU on imported capital goods in the year 1988; that the said machinery/capital goods were installed in appellants factory and manufacture goods and cleared for export till 1992 - denial of exemption on the ground of non-fulfillment of export obligation - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the fact the appellant has not complied with the export obligation under taken by him when they imported capital goods under N/N. 13/81-Cus. The entire exercise under taken by appellant as to that they are still a EOU as on 08.08.2006, when the DGFT authorities to action of suo-moto de-bonding and de-bonded their EOU, that value of the machinery will be zero if the depreciation is applied, is nothing but a facade - the appellant has no case on merits - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
........
|
