Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Versus CC (Sea) , Chennai

2017 (9) TMI 757 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Benefit of N/N. 26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000 - clearance of the imported goods of Srilankan Origin - Window Air Conditioner - denial of exemption on the ground that the benefit cannot be extended suo moto as there is a condition to the effect that the claim has to be made at the time of importation and in absence of such claim by the appellants, the benefit cannot be extended - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Share Medical Care [2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it ha .....

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 Per Bench The appellants imported 419 pieces of Window Air Conditioner from M/s. Haikawa Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka vide Bill of Entry No. 419447 dated 16.03.2007 and cleared the goods on payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 13,93,207/-. Appellants came know that the imported goods are exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000 and therefore filed an appeal to claim the benefit of the said notification. The said notification stipulates 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

re, The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants have failed to comply with the condition specified in the Notification No. 26/2000-Cus read with Notification No. 19/2000-Cus dated 01.03.2000 and hence are not eligible to avail the benefit for the impugned goods cleared by the appellants. Aggrieved, appellants are before this forum. 2. Ms. J. Ragini, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant submitted that only after clearance of the imported goods found that the goods are exempted fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

allowed with consequential relief. She relied on the following decisions in support of her contentions:- 1. CIPLA Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2007 (218) ELT 547 (Tri.-Chen.) 2. Share Medical Care Vs. UOI 2007 (209) ELT 321 (S.C). 3. The Ld. AR, Shri B. Balamurugan, AC, appearing on behalf of Revenue submitted that the appellant importer did not claim any benefit of notification at the time of assessment. To extend the benefit to the importer, the Certificate of Origin and other documents have to be ve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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