Bisco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Bisco Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 24, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41943

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/41943
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 24, 2006
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bisco Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

1. revenue filed this application for rectification of typographical mistake in the stay order dated 3.6.2005. we find merit in the contention of the revenue's application. where it is mentioned, "another demand of rs. 3,90,382/-" it should be read as "another demand of rs. 3,90,3821/-." 2. the contention of the revenue is that the pre-deposit of duty was waived as the seized goods are with the revenue. the contention of the revenue is that goods were handed-over to the appellants.3. the contention of the applicant is that the goods were only handed-over for safe custody on "superdgi" and they have no control over the goods. therefore, they cannot use the goods. in these circumstances, we find no merit in this contention of the revenue. the rom is rejected. the rom is disposed of as above.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue filed this application for rectification of typographical mistake in the stay order dated 3.6.2005. We find merit in the contention of the Revenue's application. Where it is mentioned, "another demand of Rs. 3,90,382/-" it should be read as "another demand of Rs. 3,90,3821/-." 2. The contention of the Revenue is that the pre-deposit of duty was waived as the seized goods are with the Revenue. The contention of the Revenue is that goods were handed-over to the appellants.

3. The contention of the applicant is that the goods were only handed-over for safe custody on "Superdgi" and they have no control over the goods. Therefore, they cannot use the goods. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this contention of the Revenue. The ROM is rejected. The ROM is disposed of as above.

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