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.

Cimmco International Vs. Cc

Cimmco International vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 01, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13217

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cimmco International

Respondent

Cc

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(77)LC309Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....bhargava, sr. finance manager and shri r.s.sangia, jdr.3. in this case m/s cimmco international had imported and cleared two consignments of pruning shears (handtools) under the bill of entry dated 24.8.1983. the revenue issued a less charge notice under section 28 of the customs act, 1962 on 24.8.1983. the assistant collector customs in adjudication order confirmed the less charge holding that the goods were cutting device, a category of cutting plier and hence assessable under 51a of central excise tariff. thereafter the appellants filed the appeal before the collector of customs (appeals) bombay and before the collector the appellants pleaded that the less charge memo was signed and issued on 24.8.1983. therefore the less charge notice was not issued within six months from the date of payment of duty. therefore, the less charge claim was time barred. the collector in the impugned order after relying upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of almelo laboratories pvt. ltd. v. collector of customs , held that less charge notice was within time. the collector of customs in the impugned order has not given any finding on the merits of the appeal.4. the senior finance manager appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even assuming the less charge memo was issued within six months time from the deposit of duty, they have a case on merits also.we find that no finding was given by the collector of customs in the impugned order in respect of the claim of the appellant on merits. we find that appellant had not specifically pleaded in the memo of appeal in respect of merits of the case, but in the interest of justice, we find merit in the arguments of the senior finance manager.5. in view of the above discussions, we remand the matter to the commissioner of customs (appeals), bombay for deciding the appeal of the appellant on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. the appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 19.4.1994 passed by the Collector.of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.

2. Heard Shri Pankaj Bhargava, Sr. Finance Manager and Shri R.S.Sangia, JDR.3. In this case M/s Cimmco International had imported and cleared two consignments of pruning shears (Handtools) under the bill of entry dated 24.8.1983. The revenue issued a less charge notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 24.8.1983. The Assistant Collector Customs in adjudication order confirmed the less charge holding that the goods were cutting device, a category of cutting plier and hence assessable under 51A of Central Excise Tariff. Thereafter the appellants filed the appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay and before the Collector the appellants pleaded that the less charge memo was signed and issued on 24.8.1983. Therefore the less charge notice was not issued within six months from the date of payment of duty. Therefore, the less charge claim was time barred. The Collector in the impugned order after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Almelo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs , held that less charge notice was within time. The Collector of Customs in the impugned order has not given any finding on the merits of the appeal.

4. The Senior Finance Manager appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even assuming the less charge memo was issued within six months time from the deposit of duty, they have a case on merits also.

We find that no finding was given by the Collector of Customs in the impugned order in respect of the claim of the appellant on merits. We find that appellant had not specifically pleaded in the memo of appeal in respect of merits of the case, but in the interest of justice, we find merit in the arguments of the Senior Finance Manager.

5. In view of the above discussions, we remand the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bombay for deciding the appeal of the appellant on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial