Euresian Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Euresian vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 14, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25698

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/25698
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 14, 2001
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

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

FERA

Key legal issue: FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Euresian

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

2. it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it did not import the goods at all. the importer was k.a. malle pharmaceuticals ltd. to whom the appellant had transferred the advance licence that it was granted. he contends that the show cause notice had evidently been issued by reference to the import licence and not the bill of entry. he is not able to produce the bill of entry in question since he was not the importer.3. the letter dated 15.7.1994 of the appellant to k.a. malle pharmaceuticals ltd. prima facie indicates that the advance licence, referred to in the show cause notice, had been transferred by the appellant. the bill of entry under which the goods were imported is dated 19.12.1994. it therefore prima facie appears that the goods in question were not imported by the appellant. we would, however, like the commissioner to decide this aspect.4. accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.counsel for the appellant undertakes that he will produce evidence to the commissioner that the appellant did not import the goods, within two months from the receipt of this order. the commissioner shall, after considering this material, adjudicate upon the notice in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

2. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it did not import the goods at all. The importer was K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to whom the appellant had transferred the advance licence that it was granted. He contends that the show cause notice had evidently been issued by reference to the import licence and not the bill of entry. He is not able to produce the bill of entry in question since he was not the importer.

3. The letter dated 15.7.1994 of the appellant to K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Ltd. prima facie indicates that the advance licence, referred to in the show cause notice, had been transferred by the appellant. The bill of entry under which the goods were imported is dated 19.12.1994. It therefore prima facie appears that the goods in question were not imported by the appellant. We would, however, like the Commissioner to decide this aspect.

4. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Counsel for the appellant undertakes that he will produce evidence to the Commissioner that the appellant did not import the goods, within two months from the receipt of this order. The Commissioner shall, after considering this material, adjudicate upon the notice in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Euresian vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject FERA