Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

Exemption under N/N. 151/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009 - import of Injection Moulds - certificate of origin - whether the appellants importer, who had imported certain goods from Korea and was entitled to benefit of exemption of Customs duty under Notification No.151/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009, in respect of goods imported under Korea-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and whether the appellant can claim the said benefit, subsequent to import and after assessment of the Bill of Entry, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lant is also directed to appear before the adjudicating authority with their representation and supporting within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and seek an opportunity of hearing - matter remanded - appeal allowed. - Appeal Nos. C/709 & 710/2010-CU [SM] - Final Order No. 70816-70817/2016 - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (A.R.) for the Department ORD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and whether the appellant can claim the said benefit, subsequent to import and after assessment of the Bill of Entry, by filing appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). 2. The brief facts are that the appellants imported some Injection Moulds from M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Korea. As the certificate of origin had not been issued prior to dispatch of the goods from Korea, the same were not available and accordingly did not claim the benefit of ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

07.05.2010 Bill of Entry No.2055657 dated 06.05.2010 2 Certificate of Origin No.021-10-00023 dated 20.05.2010 Certificate of Origin No.021-10-00065 dated 01.07.2010 3 O/A No. 302/CUS/APPL/NOIDA/ 2010 dated 30.09.2010 O/A No.302/CUS/APPL/NOIDA/ 2010 dated 30.09.2010 The Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed both the appeals as non-maintainable and filed pre-maturely observing that Rule 15 of Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between Governments of R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the said Annexure-III of the aforementioned Customs Tariff Rules, 2009 provides that each importing state party may, in accordance with its Laws and regulations, provide that where goods that would have qualified as originating goods when it was imported into its territory, the importer of goods may apply for refund of any excess duty paid as a result of the goods not having been accorded preferential tariff treatment. Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants should hav .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2007(210) E.L.T. 188, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court in para 4 of its order have held as follows: In our view the High Court had erred in holding that the Tribunal could not have examined the question of dutiability, once on merits, the order of the Commissioner (A) dated 22.03.2000 became final. Firstly, one must understand that excisability is a matter of principle. The Tribunal is the highest authori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er in the second round the appellant appeared before the adjudicating authority and pointed out in the alternative that the duty demanded from the appellants at the rate of ₹ 94,03,500/ was erroneous as the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. From this it cannot be said that the question of excisability or dutiability had become final. The conclusion of the Commissioner (A) in his order dated 223.03.2000 was not binding on the Tribunal. Further one needs to understand .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he matter to an expert. The Act also makes provision for special audit. However, when the principle of law is evolved an appeal lies to the appellate Tribunal under the said Act. In fact, the power of remand by the Commissioner (A) has been taken away by amending Section 35A with effect from 11.05.2001 under the Finance Bill, 2001. Under the Notes to clause 122 of the said Bill it is stated that clause 122 seeks to amend Section 35A so as to withdraw the powers of remand from the Commissioner (A .....

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