Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: customs act 1962 Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat bangalore Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 48 results (0.080 seconds)

Aug 08 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited Vs. the Commissione ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Aug-08-2012

..... such payments are not included in the price actually paid or payable. (2) for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the customs act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and these rules, the value of the imported goods shall be the value of such goods, for delivery at the time and place of importation and ..... amount of rs. 1,05,17,734/- being the total import duty short paid was demanded under section 28 (1) of the customs act 1962. also the interest chargeable under section 28ab of the customs act 1962 on the total differential duty of rs. 1,05,17,734/- was ordered to be paid. the goods covered under 7 bills ..... (2) ------ explanation. .. rule 2 (1)(g) of cvr 88 transaction value means the value referred to in sub-section (1) of section 14 of the customs act, 1962. rule 4 of cvr, 1988 4. transaction value. - (1) the transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when ..... 28 w.e.f. 08.04.2011 for the old section 28. sub-section (11) of the new section 28 of the customs act, 1962, has been inserted vide the customs (amendment and validation) act, 2011 introduced w.e.f. 16.09.2011 and inter alia provides as follows: notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any ..... in terms of rules 4 read with 9(1)(b)(iv) of cvr, 1988 read with section 14 of the customs act, 1962 and demand duty short paid under section 18(2) of the customs act 1962. 4.1. the learned senior counsel, at the outset, challenges the impugned order on the ground of lack of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2012 (TRI)

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. the Commissioner of Customs Bangal ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Feb-24-2012

..... maximum penalty imposable under section 117 of customs act 1962. in the light of facts and circumstances discussed above, i consider that a penalty of rs. 1,000/- would meet the ends of justice. ..... penalty need not have been imposed. taking note of the fact that mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty under section 117 of customs act 1962 and other issues as discussed above, i consider that this is a case wherein a nominal penalty is required to be imposed and not the ..... the appellant. nevertheless, i consider that these observations are very important to determine the quantum of penalty imposable on the appellant. section 117 of customs act 1962 provided for a penalty not exceeding rs. 10,000/- during the relevant period when offence was committed. the amount of rs. 10,000/- (not rs ..... that the condition had been violated. further as submitted by the learned ar, no mens rea is required for imposition of penalty under section 117 of customs act 1962 and therefore, the observations of the commissioner that there was no mala fide intention and it was basically an oversight, is not of any help to ..... the commissioner should not have imposed penalty of more than rs. 10,000/-. 4. the learned ar submits that the provisions of section 117 of customs act 1962 did not require any mala fide intention or mens rea for imposition of penalty and it is a fact that as required in terms of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2012 (TRI)

Vikram JaIn Vs. Cc, Bangalore

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Apr-09-2012

..... they appear to have render themselves liable to pay interest at 20% on the said duty under section 28ab of the customs act, 1962 and liable to penalty under section 112 and 114 of the customs act, 1962. shri vikram jain, proprietor of m/s. texworth international appears to have rendered himself liable for penalty under section 112 and ..... 114 of the customs act, 1962 inasmuch as he misused the deec concession granted and also colluded with shri h.bhaskar, shri b. prasad, shri raviprakash and shri ..... out in the show-cause notice constituted an offence which invited penalty and therefore, notwithstanding the non-mention of section 113 or section 114 of the customs act in the operative part of the notice, it was open to the adjudicating authority to invoke these provisions against the appellant. in this connection, reliance ..... the revenue in the show-cause notice, if the pith and substance of the show-cause notice fulfill the provisions of s.114 of the customs act, it was for the tribunal to consider the case of the parties on merits and to find out whether the revenue has made out a ..... jain, proprietor of m/s. texworth international, challenges the penalty of rs.20 lakhs imposed on him under section 114(i) of the customs act by the commissioner of customs vide order-in-original no.35/2000 dt. 06/09/2000. this bench vide final order no.624/2006 dt. 13/02/2006 set .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2012 (TRI)

Shri Amitabh Bathla, Proprietor, M/S Symax Industrial Products Vs. Com ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-05-2012

..... an eventuality, the commissioner has held that the duty and other dues in terms of section 125 of the customs act 1962 shall be payable. since the powers under section 17 or section 28 of the customs act have not been exercised by the commissioner (preventive), no further discussion is required on various submissions made by ..... assigned the functions of proper officer to the commissioner of customs (preventive), also for the purpose of section 17 and section 28 of the customs act by issue of notification no. 44/2011(nt) dated 6.7.2011 and that section 28 of the customs act, 1962 has been amended by inserting sub-section 11 to ..... the effect that the commissioners of customs (prev.) shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers for the purposes of this ..... , as they are not available for confiscation, confiscation of the same cannot be upheld. 8.2. commissioner has confirmed under section 28 of the customs act, differential customs duty of rs. 4,63,841/- for 140 cartons treating the value as rs. 11,50,068/-. a grievance was made that the commissioner ..... of redemption fine and penalty. (e) in the event of assessee opting for redemption, the duty payable in terms of section 125(2) of customs act will be based on re-determined value. (f) no order is passed in respect of the other party to the impugned order as they are not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Avt Natural Products Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs Cochin

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-30-2012

..... to be redeemed for re-export on payment of fine of rs. 10,000/- and a penalty of rs. 3,000/- was also imposed under section 112(a) of the customs act, 1962. c) the appellants claimed that the same were exported by filing shipping bill no. 1517945 dated 10.04.2008. it is the case of the appellants that consequent to re ..... ) has upheld the order of the original authority. 4. learned advocate, after narrating the facts of the case as above, submits that the documents available with the department of the customs clearly establish the import of the goods and confiscation of part of the goods and re-export of the goods so confiscated after payment of redemption fine and penalty. it ..... -export of part of the items imported vide bill of entry dated 29.01.2008, their liability to customs duty has come down to rs. 2,03,671/- and that in respect of re-exported goods the duty paid amounting to rs. 94,163/- was liable to be refunded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2012 (TRI)

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Port ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-30-2012

..... , there is a violation in not taking an ie code before import of the goods. original authority has imposed a penalty of rs. 2,000/- under section 117 of the customs act. apparently, the imported goods have been subjected to assessment and duty stands collected. merely because ie code was not there, to treat the said goods as prohibited would be only ..... there was no detail of the goods imported. he has also held that the goods could not be treated as prohibited goods in terms of section 2(33) of the customs act. against the order of the commissioner (appeals) upholding the order of the original authority, the department has filed appeal before the tribunal. 4. learned superintendent (ar) reiterates the grounds of ..... that such import without ie code was in violation of section 7 of the foreign trade (development and regulation) act, 1992. therefore, he has imposed a penalty of rs. 2000/- on the importer under section 117 of the customs act for having committed the act of importing goods without having importer/exporter code. department was of the view that even the goods which have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2012 (TRI)

M/S Indus Floritech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-12-2012

p.g. chacko, member (judicial) we had directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of rs. 5,00,000/- within six weeks from the date of our stay order no. 1023/2011 (18.10.2011) and report compliance on 14.12.2011. subsequently, the appellant made an application for extension of time for making the pre-deposit, which we accepted and granted extension of time by two weeks vide miscellaneous order no. 132 dated 22.2.2012. accordingly, the appellant was to report compliance today, for which the matter comes up before us.2. today, there is no representation for the appellant nor any evidence brought on record showing pre-deposit of the aforesaid amount. the appeal is dismissed for want of compliance under section 129e of the customs act.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2012 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Mangalore Vs. M/S. Ansal Granicom (P) L ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-12-2012

..... these appeals filed by the department are directed against two orders of the commissioner (appeals). the respondent had imported certain inputs on payment of duties of customs (including cvd) by utilizing depb credit. subsequently, cenvat credit of the cvd so paid was taken by the respondent in 2003-04 amounting to rs ..... these appeals. the relevant show-cause notices were issued far beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed under section 11a(i) of the central excise act, without invoking the extended period of limitation. the operative part of one of these show-cause notices has been reproduced hereinbefore. the other show ..... rs.5,11,527/- paid by the assessee for the above should not be demanded and appropriated against the said demand under section 11ab of central excise act, 1944; (iv) penalty should not be imposed on them under rule 13 of erstwhile cenvat credit rules, 2002 (presently rule 15 of cenvat credit ..... of cenvat credit on inputs imported under depb scheme should not be demanded and appropriated against the said demand under section 11a of central excise act, 1944; (ii) an amount of rs.7,14,743/- debited in cenvat account by the assessee towards wrong availment of cenvat credit on ..... cenvat credit on certain capital goods and had also simultaneously claimed depreciation of the value of these goods under section 32 of the income tax act. when this irregularity was pointed out by the auditors of the department, an amount equal to the credit taken on the capital goods was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2012 (TRI)

Cce, Bangalore Vs. M/S. Ontop Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-06-2012

..... the learned commissioner(appeals). 2. heard both sides. the learned additional commissioner(ar) reiterated the grounds of the appeal. he submitted that the amounts collected by the respondent from their customer as product development charges and consultancy charges were for meeting indirect expenses connected with the conversion of raw materials into finished products and hence clearly identifiable as conversion charges which ..... medicaments and hence should form part of the assessable value of the goods. it also imposed equal amount of penalty on the assessee under section 11ac of the central excise act besides another penalty of rs.20,000/- on them under rule 27 of the central excise rules, 2001. aggrieved, the assessee(respondent) preferred an appeal to the commissioner(appeals). the ..... of the case are as follows: the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of p or p medicaments of chapter 30 of the 1st schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985. during the period 1999-2000 to 2000-2001, they manufactured certain medicaments on job work basis for m/s. systopic laboratories ltd. (sll) who supplied the necessary raw materials .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Resil Chemicals Private Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Exci ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore

Decided on : Mar-02-2012

..... . commissioner: 2007 (215) e.l.t. 515 (tri.-bang.) wherein it was held that the place where export documents were presented to the customs was the place of removal for exports under section 5 of the central excise act. learned commissioner (ar) points out that there are instances of chas undertaking activities which are ordinarily outside the ambit of cha s functions ..... ble high court in ultratech cement case. the honble karnataka high court also, in para 12 of its judgment in stanzen toyotetsu case, considered the provisions of the factories act in the context of deciding whether there was nexus between outdoor catering service and the business of manufacture of goods. in this scenario, i am constrained to hold that the ..... by the manufacturer who availed the said service for supply of food to workers numbering 250 or more. in other words, the legal obligation of the manufacturer under the factories act was considered as a relevant factor determinative of nexus between the service and the business of manufacture of goods. this part of the decision of the larger bench in gtc ..... the number of employees as one of the factors in the context of examining whether the assessee could claim cenvat credit on outdoor catering service. section 46 of the factories act was taken note of and it was held that it was mandatory, under that provision, for a manufacturer employing more than 250 workers to maintain a canteen in the factory .....

Tag this Judgment!


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