Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1775 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (10) TMI 1775 - SUPREME COURT - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 210 (SC) - Valuation - Zinc Die Cast Scrap imported; claimed classification under Chapter Sub-Heading 7902.00 On examination, very few pieces were found to be scrap and balance all items were found to be unused and they were serviceable High Court held that the imported goods are nothing but scrap and valued the same as per the highest bid received. - Seizure and confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ali Nariman, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr K Radhakrishnan, Sr Adv., Ms Sunita Rani Singh, Adv., Mr Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr B V Niren, Adv. & Mr B Krishna Prasad, Adv For the Respondents : Mr Kavin Gulati, Sr Adv., Mr Deepta Kirti Verma, Adv., Mr Dilip Mamtora, Adv. & Ms Neha Sharma, Adv ORDER The respondent imported Zinc Die Cast Scrap and claimed classification under Chapter Sub-Heading 7902.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. A Bill of Entry denoting value at ₹ 10,04,792/- was filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ieces were found to be scrap and balance all items were found to be unused and they were serviceable. The entire consignment was placed under seizure under a reasonable belief that the same was misdeclared for description and value and were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A detailed valuation report was obtained from an expert valuer to ascertain the value of fittings which was ascertained at ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla upheld all the allegations made in the show cause notice and ordered accordingly. The respondent challenged the Order-in-Original before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') which upheld the Order-in-Original but set aside the penalty on the Proprietor. The respondent went into appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against the order of CESTAT. The High Court allowed the writ petition file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version