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 Videocon International Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, NCH, Mumbai

2016 (12) TMI 699 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus dated 28.2.1999 - concessional rate of duty on ‘Strontium Carbonate’ falling under Chapter 28 used in manufacture of “Glass Shells/Parts for Colour Picture Tubes” - certificate in terms of Rule 4 of the said Rules - Held that: - Exhibit –‘H’ of the appeal memorandum is a letter of the appellant addressed to the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, wherein they have claimed that they had sought exemption under Notification No. 25/99-Cus. In the said letter, they have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- 15-11-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Yogesh S Patki, Advocate, for Appellant Shri M.K. Mall, Asstt. Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by the appellant, M/s Videocon International Ltd. The appellant imported certain goods and claimed benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus dated 28.2.1999. The said notification provided for concessional rate of duty on Strontium Carbonate falling under Chapter 28 used in manuf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rned Counsel for the appellant argued that they had filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods claiming the benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus. He stated that they have been claiming the said benefit for such product earlier to the impugned Bill of Entry and later also and the same has been allowed to them. He argued that in the instant case, they had obtained a certificate from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 13.12.2004. He argued that they had produced the certificate before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that though the learned Counsel asserted that they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus in the Bill of Entry, a perusal of the said Bill of Entry show that instead of Notification No. 25/99, the benefit of Notification No. 5/2004-Cus has been claimed. Thus, it can be seen that there is no claim for Notification No. 25/99-Cus. However, it is seen from Exhibit E of the appeal papers that in check-list for the said Bill .....

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