insight Communication Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

insight Communication vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 20, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26747

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/26747
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Nov 20, 2001
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

insight Communication

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Excerpt

1. when this stay application came up on 28.9.2001, we had asked the departmental representative to verify the contentions raised by counsel for the applicant, adjourned the matter to 18.10.2001 indicating that the appeal would be taken up that day for hearing. it was adjourned that day at the request of the departmental representative who wanted further time to check up. today the departmental representative once again seeks adjournment. his explanation for the adjournment is unconvinced, that there is omission to check up the position of the customs. we find prima facie that the issue is covered by the judgment of the supreme court in eicher tractors ltd. v. cc 2000 elt 321, and also prima facie on its own merits. since the applicant has about 10 cases of other importation and the departmental representative despite given two opportunities, is not in a position to say why this should not be applied.2. accordingly we waive deposit of the duty and penalty. appeal to come up on 19^th november, 2001.

Full Judgment

1. When this stay application came up on 28.9.2001, we had asked the departmental representative to verify the contentions raised by counsel for the applicant, adjourned the matter to 18.10.2001 indicating that the appeal would be taken up that day for hearing. It was adjourned that day at the request of the departmental representative who wanted further time to check up. Today the departmental representative once again seeks adjournment. His explanation for the adjournment is unconvinced, that there is omission to check up the position of the customs. We find prima facie that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC 2000 ELT 321, and also prima facie on its own merits. Since the applicant has about 10 cases of other importation and the departmental representative despite given two opportunities, is not in a position to say why this should not be applied.

2. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty and penalty. Appeal to come up on 19^th November, 2001.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties insight Communication vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Same Subject Miscellaneous