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

2015 (11) TMI 1236 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (11) TMI 1236 - SUPREME COURT - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 629 (SC) - Duty demand - non removal of goods after expiry of warehousing period - Held that:- Case is covered by the judgment of this Court in 'Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta' [1996 (8) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. - Commissioner directed to recalculate the interest. He may complete this exercise within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and indicate the exact amount of interest which is paya .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Fali Nariman, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Adv., Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Adv., Mr. K. Ajit Singh, Adv. & M/s. Khaitan & Co. For the Respondent : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv., Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv., Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. ORDER The appellant-assessee herein entered into a contract dated 10.04.1996 with one M/s. China Iron & Steel Industry and Trade Group Corporation, Beijing, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ht extensions thereof as well. The extended period expired on 31.03.2002. During this period, the goods which were warehoused were removed substantially but still some goods remained to be cleared. As these goods were not cleared by the period permitted, the remaining goods were treated as unauthorised goods warehoused. It resulted in Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.2005 whereby a demand of duty of ₹ 3,07,65,945/- was raised in respect of uncleared goods which lay in the warehouse beyond the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') which also dismissed the appeal vide orders dated 05.04.2007. Mr. S. K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, fairly conceded that the case is covered by the judgment of this Court in 'Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta' [1996 (5) SCC 576]. However, he endeavored to argue that the said judgment does not depict the law correctly and, therefore, made a fervent plea to refer the matter to larger Bench. After hea .....

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