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) , Mumbai Zone-II Versus M/s. PEC. Ltd.

2015 (11) TMI 1396 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of benefit of exemption Notification to the goods imported before the issue of public notice dated 18/5/2011 which were ex-bonded after the issue of public notice - removal of condition of "Actual user" - Held that:- The exemption is available subject to the condition that rate of duty shall apply such quantity of imports for which importer hold tariff rate quota allocation certificate issued by the custom facilitation committee in the DGFT in accordance with the procedure as may be speci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

BAY), it was held by the Hon ble Mumbai High Court that custom authorities cannot be sit in pin over the decision of licencing authority. In view of the matter we find nothing miss and held that the licence without actual user stipulation is authority for the - by the clearance of the subject goods. - no hesitation in rejected the appeal of the Revenue. - Decided against revenue. - APPEAL NO. C/873/12, C/85576/13 - Dated:- 29-7-2015 - Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Memb .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lied retrospectively. The appellant imported maize corn and warehoused them in the custom bonded warehouse. Thereafter they filed ex-bond bill of entry dated 21/7/2011 for clearances of the warehouse goods under Section 68 of Customs Act under import licence No. 0550002311 dated 8/7/2011 for the clearance of the goods, which are in the extracted list of import items claiming the benefit of Sr. 21 of Notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 1/3/2002 as amended by Notification No. 42/2008CUS dated 1/4/2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch of Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh order dated 23/1/2012 in Writ Petition No. 16349 of 2011 in the matter of Sriven Marketing held that the public notice dated 18/5/ 2011 is issued correctly, the division bench vide interim order dated 4/4/2012 in WAMP 447/2012 state operation of the single member bench. 2. Ld.A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue informed us that order of division bench of Hon ble Andra Pradesh High Court in writ petition No. 228/2012 which had dismissed the writ peti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otice fix without ex-bond clearances was done after date of public notice. He relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India[1995(75)ELT 32(S.C.)]. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the Hon ble Andra Pradesh High Court order in the case of the same appellant in Sriven Marketing Vs. Union of India[2012(275) ELT 39 (A.P)] which upheld validity of public notice dated 18/5/2011. He further showed us the licence unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd. Vs. Union of India[2003(157) ELT 13(Bom.] and Hon bel Apex Court decision in the case of Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi[2003(151) ELT 254(S.C.)]. Lastly he stated that even if the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has recalled its order in the case of Sriven Marketing the licence will still remain valid. 4. Heard both sides and carefully considered the submissions. 5. In this case adjudicating authority denied benefit of exemption Notification to the go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rdance with the procedure as may be specified.. We find that licence number under which the goods were ex-bonded No. 0550002311 issued to the respondent for release Tariff Rate Quota for the year 2011-12. Licence does not bear any actual user condition therefore Ld. Counsel for the respondent is right in contending that custom authority could not refuse exemption on the ground that license has not been issued correctly. It is for the DGFT to examine whether the licence was issued correctly or no .....

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