Ankit International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Ankit International vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 09, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39308

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/39308
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, A M Moheb
Decided On: Jun 09, 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

Ankit International

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(188)ELT50Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this application for rectification of mistake arises out of the tribunal's order nos. a/261-266/ wzb/2005/c-i, dated 11-3-2005.2. the bench in the impugned order observed that the present applicants, in whose name bills of entry were filed, have disowned the goods and do not wish to redeem them as they are not the owners. after having said so, in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the bench observed that since the appellants did not contest the liability of the goods to confiscation under sections 111(m) and (d) of the customs act the order of the commissioner is upheld. the bench also confirmed the demand for duty.3. the applicants contend that there is a mistake apparent in the order inasmuch as the bench confirmed the demand for duty after holding that the applicants are not the owners of the goods.5. we do not see how this constitutes an error apparent. under section 12 of the customs act, duty is leviable on all imported goods. it is a fact that the goods have been imported into the country and are liable to duty. this apart the order does not say that the present applicants will have to discharge duty even when they do not redeem the goods. we do not see that there is any error apparent in the order.

Full Judgment

1. This application for rectification of mistake arises out of the Tribunal's Order Nos. A/261-266/ WZB/2005/C-I, dated 11-3-2005.

2. The Bench in the impugned order observed that the present applicants, in whose name bills of entry were filed, have disowned the goods and do not wish to redeem them as they are not the owners. After having said so, in Paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the Bench observed that since the appellants did not contest the liability of the goods to confiscation under Sections 111(m) and (d) of the Customs Act the order of the Commissioner is upheld. The Bench also confirmed the demand for duty.

3. The applicants contend that there is a mistake apparent in the order inasmuch as the Bench confirmed the demand for duty after holding that the applicants are not the owners of the goods.

5. We do not see how this constitutes an error apparent. Under Section 12 of the Customs Act, duty is leviable on all imported goods. It is a fact that the goods have been imported into the country and are liable to duty. This apart the order does not say that the present applicants will have to discharge duty even when they do not redeem the goods. We do not see that there is any error apparent in the order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Ankit International vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, A M Moheb