Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Salico Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs

Salico Electronics vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 14, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10219

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Salico Electronics

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1996)(88)ELT664TriDel

Excerpt

1. this appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 24-11-1988 passed by collector (appeals), bombay who has confirmed the order passed by asstt. collector rejecting the refund claim on the ground that inspite of office letter dated 19-5-1986, the applicants had failed to produce the evidence called for by the office, that they had not produced the end-use certificate justifying the utilisation of the imported goods for the manufacture of "printed circuit boards".2. we have heard shri bhupinder singh, proprietor for the appellants and shri k.k. jha, ld. dr, for the revenue. the appellants had produced all the necessary documents evidencing the utilisation of the imported item for the manufacture of the final goods. the appellants submits that there was delay in producing the documents and therefore, the pray that the matter can be remanded for de novo consideration.4. we have heard both sides. we are satisfied that it is a fit case for remand. we find that notification no. 231/83, dated 18-8-1983 and requirement of its essential certificate does not apply, in case goods are imported against automatic licence and supplementary licence. our attention has been drawn to licence no. 1922012 which indicates automatic licence. we also find that the appellants have since produced necessary end-use certificate of the director of industries, delhi dated 28-10-1988. in view of this, we are of the view that it is a case for remand. therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to asstt. commissioner for de novo consideration after affording the appellants to reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 24-11-1988 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay who has confirmed the order passed by Asstt. Collector rejecting the refund claim on the ground that inspite of office letter dated 19-5-1986, the applicants had failed to produce the evidence called for by the office, that they had not produced the end-use certificate justifying the utilisation of the imported goods for the manufacture of "Printed Circuit Boards".

2. We have heard Shri Bhupinder Singh, Proprietor for the appellants and Shri K.K. Jha, ld. DR, for the Revenue. The appellants had produced all the necessary documents evidencing the utilisation of the imported item for the manufacture of the final goods. The appellants submits that there was delay in producing the documents and therefore, the pray that the matter can be remanded for de novo consideration.

4. We have heard both sides. We are satisfied that it is a fit case for remand. We find that Notification No. 231/83, dated 18-8-1983 and requirement of its essential certificate does not apply, in case goods are imported against automatic licence and supplementary licence. Our attention has been drawn to Licence No. 1922012 which indicates automatic licence. We also find that the appellants have since produced necessary end-use certificate of the Director of Industries, Delhi dated 28-10-1988. In view of this, we are of the view that it is a case for remand. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to Asstt. Commissioner for de novo consideration after affording the appellants to reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial