Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: customs act 1962 Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat bangalore Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.108 seconds)

Nov 27 2000 (TRI)

V.H. Safiqur Rehman and anr. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Nov-27-2000

Reported in : (2001)(96)LC602Tri(Bang.)alore

..... (d) when we find there is no case for confiscation of goods and/or determination of any less charge of duty under section 28 of the customs act 1962, there is no case or cause for determination of penalties under section 114a and or 112a as arrived at by the ld. commissioner. hence, the ..... appellants' factory at hindupur (andhra pradesh). (c) when we find that mutilation under section 24 was permissible and is permitted under section 24 of the customs act, 1962 and board's order permits the benefit of notification on scrap, rate of duty clearance in such cases, we find no reasons to determine the short ..... clearance by mutilation is not banned. we, therefore, cannot find any reason to sustain the confiscation under section 112(d)(i) and (m) of the customs act, 1962. (b) relying on the fact that end use bond has been given for mutilation of the imported goods in the factory premises and also that the ..... been made by a pre judged mind against the present importers and the benefit of the supreme court decision on mutilation under section 24 of the customs act, 1962 has been denied without any case or cause. he submitted that the entire determination of demand of duty and penalties under section 114a and 112a ..... ordered to be confiscated on the charge of concealment and mis-declaration of quantity and description under section 111(d), (1) & (m) of the customs act, 1962 and were ordered to be redeemed, on payment of a fine of rs. 10,00,000/-. the 8 mt bushelings were used as a cover for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2000 (TRI)

M/S. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Jan-18-2000

..... have contravened the provisions of section 46(4) of the of customs act, 1962, rendering the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m) of the customs act, and rendering himself liable for penal action in terms of section 112 of the customs act, 1962. accordingly a show cause notice was issued. commissioner has ordered confiscation ..... on m/s.sal under section 112 of the customs act, 1962.shri.raghu submitted that since the party has abandoned the goods, question on ..... the goods on payment of fine of rs.20 lakhs under section 125 of the customs act, 1962. in addition to redemption fine he imposed penalty of rs.7 lakhs ..... of the goods under section 111 of the customs act. however he gave an option to redeem ..... the assessee shri.raghu submitted that since the goods are abandoned, the question of redemption fine as well as penalty under section 112 of the customs act, does not arise.3. as can be seen from, the records the appellants had imported 30 nos.of engine assembly and 30 nos. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2000 (TRI)

Cc Vs. N.G.E.F. Limited

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Jan-27-2000

Reported in : (2000)(93)LC558Tri(Bang.)alore

..... disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefor in the relevant provisions of the customs act, 1962. if really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the party might seek recourse to such ..... ecr c cus 1094 sc with regard to granting of refund application that appellate tribunal as well as customs authorities are bound by statutory period of limitation as contained in section 27 of the customs act 1962. in the case of collector of central excise, chandigarh v. doaba co-operative sugar mills with regard ..... illegal and improper inasmuch as the departmental authorities could not have entertained the refund applications except in terms of the statutory provisions of the customs act. they have relied on decisions of the apex court and other authorities in support of their claim.3. it is observed that the ..... and january, 1989. refund applications were filed only on 12.11.1991 i.e. well beyond the period prescribed under section 27 of the customs act for filing refund applications. the claim itself was on the ground that the respondents had paid interest at 18% in respect of warehoused goods ..... to jurisdiction of departmental authorities to sanction refund: 6. it appears that where the duty has been levied without the authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specific provisions of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 2000 (TRI)

Millipore India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Dec-01-2000

Reported in : (2001)(95)LC241Tri(Bang.)alore

..... .21 holding the classification under 39.20 to be correct and also in one case held the application for refund to be barred by limitation under section 27 of the customs act, 1962.3. the collector (appeals) passed a common order in the two refund applications, thus rejected by ac. he did not give any finding as regards the bar of time limitation ..... requisite bond for provisional assessment. the appellants were dissatisfied with the provisional assessment order classifying the goods under 39.20 and preferred a refund application under section 27 of the customs act, 1962 by claiming note 10 to chapter 39 prescribes that plate sheets, films, foils and strips of plastics etc., would only be included under 39.20 and relying on chapter xvi ..... , are being correctly classified under 39.20.7. we have carefully considered the rival submissions and after considering the matter find (a) when the assessments are provisional even under the customs act, the findings of the larger bench decision in the case of cce v. pmt machine tolls would be applicable. the proviso being pan materia and also this decision is based ..... prescribed lengths in one case and running length in another, but were claimed by the appellants to be classifiable under customs tariff heading 84.21 as they were specifically designed filter elements though made up of plastics. the proper officer of customs who was required to assess the bill of entry ordered a 'provisional assessment' since he had certain reservations about the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2000 (TRI)

Anil Associates Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Sep-20-2000

Reported in : (2000)(93)LC443Tri(Bang.)alore

..... 34/99 dated 14.6.1999. against the said order, appellants had filed civil petition no. 1116/99 dated 18.7.2000 under section 130(3) of the customs act before high court of karnataka seeking for drawing statement of facts from the tribunal to determine the question as noted above. the hon'ble high court has been pleased ..... the same by which the commissioner had held that the aniseeds were confiscable in terms of order-in-original passed by addl. commissioner under section lll(d) of the customs act. however, same was granted redemption on payment of fine of rs. 7 lakhs and penalty of rs. 50,000/-. the commissioner confirmed the order without any modification. ..... .2000 in civil petition no. 1116/99 has directed this tribunal to refer the following questions by drawing up a statement in terms of section 130 of the customs act to decide the same: 1. whether the hon'ble tribunal is correct in holding that the importation of aniseeds by the appellants under special import licence is not ..... along with paper book to the hon'ble high court of karnataka for answering the questions already drawn in terms of section 130(3) of the customs act, 1962. reference application allowed. ..... of same goods while determining the quantum of redemption fine and penalty as per the well settled law when the documents in this regard can be obtained from the custom house. 4. whether, the hon'ble tribunal is correct in law in holding the imposition of redemption fine and penalty is correct by taking into consideration of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2000 (TRI)

Rajeswari Metalluugicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-07-2000

Reported in : (2000)(93)LC308Tri(Bang.)alore

..... be considered as contemporaneous in nature and therefore even if the commissioner has not discussed those judgements, but yet the principles of section 14 of the customs act had been satisfied and there is no contravention thereof. he submits that the appellants are required to pre deposit the amounts and hence the question ..... remanded with a direction that commissioner shall examine all the judgements cited and decide the case on the well laid law down under section 14 of the customs act and the ratio of the judgements cited by the appellants.3. ld. dr justifies the order that the international prices were regulated by the minerals & ..... the order. but, however, he has not taken any pains to examine the ratio of law under the customs act and give a clear-cut finding. except that he was only quoted madras custom house letter dated 15.11.1994 received by the icd bangalore where there was a direction that the value has ..... metals bulletin, which had shown the day to day transaction and the value of the copper scrap and the custom house had adopted the value of us $ 1350/- per mt. in terms of prevailing price as available on that date and such a reliance cannot ..... and contract arrived at by the appellants to raise at us dollars 1,350/- per mt, solely on the basis of a circular issued by madras custom house by their letter nos. 59/misc/94-griv dated 15.11.1994. on that basis alone the commissioner (appeals) enhanced the value rejecting the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2000 (TRI)

K.M. Mustafa Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Aug-25-2000

Reported in : (2000)(93)LC654Tri(Bang.)alore

..... . v. cc as in 2000 (1) ecl 156 wherein it has been clearly laid down that in terms of section 35a which is also pari materia to the provisions under customs act, the commissioner (appeals) shall grant an opportunity of hearing and such granting of hearing is a mandatory provision and non grant of hearing and directing the appellants to pre-deposit ..... 1. both the stay applications and appeals arises from ex parte order of dismissal of appeals under section 129e of the customs act. k.m.mustafa's appeal was dismissed by order-in-appeal no. 4/2000 dated 6.3.2000 on the ground that the interim stay order no. 115/99 dated ..... of without grant of hearing and therefore it is violative of principles of natural justice. he further argued that even the or-der-in-original passed by additional commissioner of customs dated 28.10.1999 was also of violative of principles of natural justice as opportunity to cross-examine the several witnesses was not granted and hence both the orders suffer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2000 (TRI)

P.S.i. Data Systems Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Feb-28-2000

Reported in : (2000)(93)LC158Tri(Bang.)alore

..... the tribunal in the case of tata elxsi india ltd. as , wherein it was held that such manuals could be classified under heading 49.01 of the customs tariff act and could be free from basic customs duty. he submits therefore, in this case, the differential duty on the manuals as confirmed in the order-in-original and upheld by the order-in ..... other alternative but to set aside the impugned order along with the attendant order-in-original and to remand the matter to the original authority namely the assistant commissioner of customs concerned for de novo consideration of the entire issue.while doing so, the assistant commissioner shall hear the appellants and shall also consider the applicability of the ratio, or otherwise ..... under heading 8524.90 claiming concessional rate of duty and the manuals under heading 4901.10 which was exempted from duty. the case was adjudicated by the assistant commissioner of customs vide order-in-original no. 49/93 dated 16.12.1993, wherein it was held that the manuals would also be classified along with software under chapter 8 and hence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2000 (TRI)

Process Pumps India P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Jun-23-2000

Reported in : (2000)(93)LC256Tri(Bang.)alore

..... that the commissioner has not given hearing to the appellants at the time of passing interim order as well as the final order in tennis of section 35a of the act. the application for modification of stay order is also required to be heard as it is a continuation of stay application and orders passed thereon. in terms of principles of ..... giving very strong reasons for modifying the order impugned. the same was not considered and rejected. hence, he submits that this case would also fall under section 35a of the act, where there was necessity to grant hearing even in cases where there is an application for modification of the order.he further submits that the hon'ble madras high court ..... recovery and the appeal itself is taken up for disposal as per law. the impugned order was passed by the commissioner (appeals) rejecting the appeal under section 35f of the act on the ground of appellants not having fully pre-deposited the sum in terms of the interim order passed by him.2. the learned counsel sri k.s. ravishankar submits .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2000 (TRI)

M/S. Vijaya Seamless Containers Vs. Central Excise, Bangalore

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Dec-15-2000

Reported in : (2001)(73)ECC783

..... the supreme court in the case of thermax (1992 (61) elt 352 sc), which has been consistently followed by the tribunal and is binding on us we would in the acts and circumstances of the case not find any reason to confirm the duties, since no finding have been arrived at that the goods i.e. aluminium containers have not been .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //