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.

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Singh Enterprises

Commissioner of Customs vs Singh Enterprises

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 07, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29273

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Singh Enterprises

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(158)ELT834Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. jyoti balasundaram, member (j) - the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner of customs (appeals) who has accepted the licence submitted by the importers/respondents herein for clearance of 'supranol green bw' dyes holding that on the date of issue of licence to the importers, dyes were not in the sensitive list and subsequent inclusion of dyes in , the sensitive list by way of notification did not affect the validity of the imports.2. on hearing both sides, we find that this issue already stands settled by the tribunal decision in the case of commissioner of customs v. carpet house [1996 (88) e.l.t. 436], wherein the duty free clearance was held to be permissible because the restriction in import policy as existing on the date of issue of licence was held to be relevant and it was held that subsequent amendment was not to govern the import. the item imported in that case also supranol green bw dyes. the reference application filed by the revenue against the tribunal's order in the carpet house case was also dismissed by order nos.ci-4497-4498/wzb/1998, dated 4-12-98 [2000 (126) e.l.t. 627 (t)].3. as the issue is covered in favour of the importers by the decision cited supra, we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) - The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who has accepted the licence submitted by the importers/respondents herein for clearance of 'Supranol Green BW' Dyes holding that on the date of issue of licence to the importers, dyes were not in the sensitive list and subsequent inclusion of dyes in , the sensitive list by way of Notification did not affect the validity of the imports.

2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue already stands settled by the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Carpet House [1996 (88) E.L.T. 436], wherein the duty free clearance was held to be permissible because the restriction in Import Policy as existing on the date of issue of licence was held to be relevant and it was held that subsequent amendment was not to govern the import. The item imported in that case also Supranol Green BW dyes. The Reference Application filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order in the Carpet House case was also dismissed by Order Nos.

CI-4497-4498/WZB/1998, dated 4-12-98 [2000 (126) E.L.T. 627 (T)].

3. As the issue is covered in favour of the importers by the decision cited supra, we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial