Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) Versus KODAK INDIA LTD.

2015 (9) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Claim for refund - Respondent had imported 20 Rolls Colour Graphic film and filed Bill of entry for assessable value under CTH 3702 However refund claim of respondent was rejected Tribunal by impugned order allowed claim of assesse by upholding order of commissioner Held that:- undisputedly tribunal had directed Commissioner (Appeals) to examine issue as to whether respondents/assessee makes out case and remanded for fresh decision on issue of unjust enrichment Commissioner (Appeals) on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Appeal rejected Decide against revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 87 of 2014 - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - B.R. Gavai and A.S. Gadkari, JJ. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sujay Kantawala a/w Ms. Brijesh Pathak, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant Revenue has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 24-12-2013 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The respondent had imported 20 Rolls Col .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Appellate Authority vide order dated 16-10-2000 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority on the ground that the adjudicating authority had disqualified the refund claim without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the respondents. On remand, the original authority vide order dated 23-10-2003 sanctioned the refund amount of ₹ 11,95,219/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the sai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and referred the case back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh decision only for decision on the issue of unjust enrichment, after examining all relevant documentary evidence produced by the respondents herein and to pass fresh order after hearing the parties afresh. Vide order dated 19-10-2005, the original authority Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of assessee and rejected the departmental appeal. 4. Being aggrieved thereby the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not have been entertained. The learned Counsel relies on the various judgment including the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Aurangabad Paper Mills v. Union of India reported in 2013 (298) E.L.T. 214 (Bom.) to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) is a party. 6. Shri Kantawala, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that appeal arises purely out of the concurrent orders passed by the three authorities. The learned Counsel submits that since there is no perversity in the find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version