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 →

M/s Shaf Broadcast Versus CC (Export) , New Delhi

2016 (9) TMI 26 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of duty – imposition of penalty under section 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 – import of various broadcasting equipment vide Bill of Entry 03.07.2010 – exemption Notification No. 13/2010-Cus dated 19.02.010 – Held that: - the goods have been imported for Commonwealth Games, 2010 and the importer name is specifically mentioned as “Doordarshan - Prasar Bharti/ Shaf Broadcast for Commonwealth Games, 2010”, New Delhi, thus, benefit of notification available. Further, there is no allegat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inal Order No. 52669/2016 - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Ms. Nupur Maheshwari, Advocate for the appellant Rep. by Sh. Govind Dixit, DR for the Respondent ORDER The appeal is against order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), A.C.C. New Delhi. The appellant is a consortium of M/s Global Television Services Pty. Ltd., Australia and M/s Shaf Broadcast P. Ltd. India. The appellant enter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No. 13/2010-Cus dated 19.02.010 initiated proceedings against the appellant by issue of show cause notice dated 30.12.2010. The case was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his impugned order; he denied the exemption under the said notification and confirmed a duty demand of ₹ 2,12,97,005/-. Since the goods were already re-exported he allowed a drawback of ₹ 1,74,48,509/-, holding that the appellant is liable to pay net duty of ₹ 34,48,496/- only. He imposed a penalty of ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for import of goods. Ld. Counsel strongly contested the findings of the lower authority. She drew our attention to the fact that the consignee in the airway bill was Prasar Bharti; CHA was appointed by Prasar Bharti; undertaking has been given by appellant on behalf of the Prasar Bharti; even at the time of re-export of the impugned goods the name Prasar Bharti is mentioned in all the documents. The admitted fact of the case is that the impugned goods have been imported by/ on behalf of Prasar B .....

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