Commissioner of Customs Vs. Lotto Interseas

Commissioner of Customs vs Lotto Interseas

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 12, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39048

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/39048
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: May 12, 2005
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

Lotto Interseas

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(189)ELT123TriDel

Excerpt

.....for the respondent. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals), customs whereby the benefit of notification no.26/2000-cus. in respect of the goods imported by the respondent was allowed.2. the brief facts of the case are that respondent had imported 7,46,000 pcs. of energy saving compact flourescent lamp (cfl) and declared that the imported goods of sri lankan origin claimed the benefit of notification no. 26/2000-cus. - revenue wants to deny the benefit of the notification on the ground that there was some discrepancy in the declaration declaring one of the wattage of the of imported lamps.3. the commissioner (appeals) in that impugned order held that certificate produced by the respondent was got verified by the dri and it was found that the goods in question are of sri lankan origin and allowed the benefit of the notification.4. the only contention of the revenue is that the respondents in the bill of entry and in the certificate or origin declaring the wattage of the imported goods as 18 watts whereas on verification, it was found that lamps were of 12 wattage. the contention of the revenue is also that the imported goods, as per the notification, the benefit was wrongly allowed by the commissioner (appeals).5. we find that notification no. 26/2000-cus. provides nil rate of duty of customs in respect of the goods imported on the satisfaction of the deputy commissioner or assistant commissioner of customs that the goods in respect of which the benefit of exemption notification as claimed are of origin of sri lanka. in the present case, there is no dispute that the imported goods are of sri lankan origin. this fact was verified by the dri also. the notification provides exemption to the goods of sri lankan origin which were imported to india. therefore, mere discrepancy in the declaration regarding wattage does not make any affect regarding availment of notification. we find no infirmity in the impugned order......

Full Judgment

1. Heard the learned SDR as none appeared for the respondent. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs whereby the benefit of Notification No.26/2000-Cus. in respect of the goods imported by the respondent was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had imported 7,46,000 pcs. of Energy Saving Compact Flourescent Lamp (CFL) and declared that the imported goods of Sri Lankan origin claimed the benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. - Revenue wants to deny the benefit of the notification on the ground that there was some discrepancy in the declaration declaring one of the wattage of the of imported lamps.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in that impugned order held that certificate produced by the respondent was got verified by the DRI and it was found that the goods in question are of Sri Lankan origin and allowed the benefit of the notification.

4. The only contention of the Revenue is that the respondents in the Bill of Entry and in the certificate or origin declaring the wattage of the imported goods as 18 watts whereas on verification, it was found that lamps were of 12 wattage. The contention of the Revenue is also that the imported goods, as per the notification, the benefit was wrongly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. We find that Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. provides nil rate of duty of customs in respect of the goods imported on the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs that the goods in respect of which the benefit of exemption notification as claimed are of origin of Sri Lanka. In the present case, there is no dispute that the imported goods are of Sri Lankan origin. This fact was verified by the DRI also. The notification provides exemption to the goods of Sri Lankan Origin which were imported to India. Therefore, mere discrepancy in the declaration regarding wattage does not make any affect regarding availment of notification. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs Lotto Interseas Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.