Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2018 2018 2018 (2) Customs - 2018 (2) 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 81 to 100 of 188 Records

• 2018 (2) TMI 1074
  

  Project import - Drinking Water Supply Projects for supply of water for human or animal consumption - N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 - Held that: - the appellants have imported pipes and utilized the same for drinking water supply project and not for water treatment project - appellants will not be entitled to the benefit of Project Import as well as Customs N/N. 21/2002.

  Reliance placed in the case of Pratibha Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner [2015 (8) TMI 623 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that appellant shall not be covered by Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., which grants complete exemption from payment of basic excise duty and additional duty falling under Heading 9801 required for drinking water supply project for supply of water for human and animal consumption.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1073
  

  ROM application - validity of stay order - Held that: - Stay Order has been pronounced after appreciating the submissions of both sides - Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2005 (4) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE] has held that once the Tribunal has passed an order in connection with predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Tribunal cannot modify that order subsequently like an appellate authority.

  There is no justification for interfering with Stay Order dt. 07/08/2015 or modifying the same as there is no error on the face of the record - ROM application dismissed.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1072
  

  100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - respondent had claimed that these services on which credit was availed were utilized in the manufacture and export of readymade garments - Held that: - the CBEC has issued Circular No.120/01/2010/ST dated 19.1.2010 in which certain guidelines have been prescribed to process such refund claims under Rule 5 - the learned Commissioner (A) has recorded the finding that all the services, received and utilized by the respondent, are having nexus with the service/goods exported.

  Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1071
  

  Demand of differential duty - quantities received by the OMCs in excess of the quantities found removed at the end of their refineries - Held that: - Because of the nature of the goods i.e. petroleum products, such variations are inevitable - The guidelines have allowed monthly adjustments between the quantities of excess receipt with the quantities of short receipt before the payment of duty on monthly basis. Even though this clarification is dated 14/02/2014, which is after the date of impugned order, we are of the view that the benefit of such monthly adjustments may be extended even for the earlier periods.

  Matter remanded to the original authority for de novo decision by working out the demand after granting the adjustments as per the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue's circular - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1070
  

  Short levy of customs duty - finalisation of provisional assessment - Held that: - The customs duty is to be charged only on the basis of the actual quantity of crude receipt in the shore tank - the original authority has already perused copies of the respective shore tank receipt certificates and has finalised the provisional assessments - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1069
  

  Valuation - includibility - whether the demurrage charges are to be included in the assessable value? - Held that: - on identical facts, this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs And Vice-Versa [2017 (10) TMI 302 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has allowed the appeal of the assessee by dropping the demurrage charges.

  Penalty u/s 114A also dropped.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1068
  

  Benefit of N/N. 21/2002 (Sl.No.140) - import of parts of snap buttons - Revenue, after clearance of the goods, took the view that this exemption notification is not applicable to parts of snap buttons - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of KITEX GARMENTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., COCHIN [2009 (3) TMI 454 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that the benefit to be extended to parts. The snap button consists of 4 parts, a single part in isolation does not have any use at all. If one part is imported, all the other parts also have necessarily to be imported for use. In such circumstances, the part also would be covered by entry No.140. Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1067
  

  Import of restricted item - audio visual equipment - whether capital goods or not? - Circular dt. 06/12/2012 - Held that: - FTP allowed import of second hand capital goods without a licence only if such goods are in the nature of capital good - The DGFT has clarified, as per their circular dt. 06/12/2012, that audio visual equipments imported by the service providers can be considered as capital goods.

  Such clarification was not available to the adjudicating authority which has lead to the passing of the impugned order - the imported goods will be eligible for clearance without an import licence since they are in the nature of capital goods for the importer who is providing audio visual service.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1066
  

  Concessional rate of CVD - N/N. 6/2002-CE dt. 01/03/2002 - Held that: - Tribunal in the case of IBM INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [2009 (5) TMI 299 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held that when this server is a computer, it conforms the definition of computer and when it falls under 84.71 as given in the entry in the notification then the benefit cannot be denied - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1065
  

  Valuation - related party transaction - loading of invoice value - adjudicating authority took the view that this profit margin was extremely low in comparison to the profit margin recorded by Apple, Ireland - Held that: - there is absolutely no justification to load the value of goods imported from Singapore on the basis of the profit margin of the Ireland unit. The transaction value between the foreign supplier and the respondent has been consistently accepted by the SVB and has been periodically renewed - transaction value must be accepted - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1064
  

  Interest on delayed refunds - relevant date - Held that: - Similar issue came up before Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kamakshi Tradxim (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017 (4) TMI 223 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein their Lordships have followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India], where it was held that interest shall be payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the dte of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11BB of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order or refund is made.

  Lower authorities are directed to pay interest to appellant after 3 months from the date of filing of refund claims by the appellant till the date of actual refund paid to appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 961
  

  Provisional release of goods - import of Heavy Melting scrap at ICD, OWPL Ludhiana declaring the grade of the scrap as ISRI 207 - said goods were examined and on detailed examination of the consignment declared as Heavy Melting scrap ISRI code 207, the imported goods were found containing CR sheets/sheet cutting cut to various sizes weighing 132.895MT and 159.575MT respectively - mutilation of goods.

  Held that: - As there is divergent views of the Members of this Tribunal, therefore the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble President to appoint third Member to resolve the following issue: - Whether the goods can be released provisionally to the appellant as per the terms and conditions of Para 10 of this order, as held by Member (Judicial) - Matter referred to Third Member.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 960
  

  Refund claim - credit of amount to Consumer Welfare Fund - Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - since the refund claim does not pertain to only the said amount and also relates to the customs duty and the CVD component, Chartered Accountant certificate cannot be considered for deciding the issue regarding applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment - the appellant has not produced any other evidence to show that it had not passed on the duty incidence to any other person - transferring the refund amount by the authorities below to the Consumer Welfare fund is not faulted - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 959
  

  Concessional rate of duty - N/N. 97/04 dated 17.9.2004 - non-fulfillment of condition of Notification to earn foreign exchange within eight years from the date of issue of license - Held that: - admittedly, in the present case, the appellant has not been able to furnish the EODC certificate showing the fulfillment of conditions of the Notification. In view of the non-submission of EODC certificate, appellant is not entitled to the benefit of N/N. 97/2004 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 958
  

  Valuation - exported steel plates - goods overvalued to get higher DEPB benefits - Held that: - no active involvement of the officers has emerged from the available records except carelessness on their part. The value declared by the exporter has not given any benefit to the officer. When it is so, there is no justification in the impugned order.

  Penalty of Rs One lakh each on the appellants set aside - remaining order upheld - appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 957
  

  Penalty on Shri Radheshyam Rander u/s 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - 100% EOU - violation of import condition - detailed investigations carried out revealed that M/s. STC had diverted the raw silk imported duty free illegally into the domestic market in gross violation of the provisions of the EOU scheme - Held that: - the detailed and timely investigation carried out by DRI has unearthed the illegal activities of M/s. STC. It was found that M/s. STC has diverted the duty-free imported silk goods in total violation of the EOU Regulations - investigations further clearly established the role played by Shri Radheshyam Rander in abetting such diversion by procuring the goods from M/s. STC and disposed of the same for a commission of 3.5%.

  Considering the role played by Shri Radheshyam Rander, he is liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - quantum of penalty reduced.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 956
  

  Rejection of declared value - Polyester Zipper Rolls from China - claim of the appellant was rejected in the impugned order only on the ground that they failed to produce the bills of entry - Held that: - while taking contemporaneous imports for comparison of assessable value, it is necessary to examine that such comparison are made with declared value and not with already enhanced value. Further, when there are multiple declared values, during the material period, it is an accepted principle that lowest price of such comparable value will be considered for re-determination of value of goods, whose original declared value was rejected. None of these principles have been followed in the present assessment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 955
  

  Short levy of Customs Duty - only ground on which Revenue has challenged the impugned order is that certified shore tank receipt certificates were not available on record - Held that: - The customs duty is to be charged only on the basis of the actual quantity of crude receipt in the shore tank - After a perusal of the appeal records, it is found that the original authority has already perused copies of the respective shore tank receipt certificates and has finalised the provisional assessments - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 954
  

  Mis-declaration of imported goods - heavy melting scrap - redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - at the time of examination, neither the appellant asked for examination of the report nor disputed the same instead of that he wrote a letter that they have no objection for holding by the department that 142 MT is re-rollable material and the appellant was ready to pay differential customs duty on the said material. As the said fact is on record that the classification of the goods question as re-rollable material has not been disputed before clearance, in that circumstance, the appellant can not agitate the same at this stage.

  Redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - the goods were re-rollble material and the same has been admitted by the appellant on pointing out by the Revenue. Therefore, the goods have been mis-declared by the appellant - redemption fine and penalty rightly imposed.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 953
  

  Refund of SAD - only reason why the refund claims were rejected by the original authority was that more than on refund claim was filed in a month which is not in conformity with the CBEC circular No.6/2008, according to which the importers are required to file only one consolidated claim per month for refund in terms of N/N. 102/2007 - Held that: - since the notification itself does not provide for such a condition that only one refund claim is to be filed within a month, refund is allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

123456789........ 10