GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 26 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 26 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. - Del.) - 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 D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osed – decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 3696 of 2012 - Final 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said Bill of Entry are not eligible for exemption in terms of Notification 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tions the appellant s name also alongwith M/s Doordarshan - Prasar Bharti, 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 c .....

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