Commissioner of Customs (i) Vs. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs (i) vs Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 22, 2007

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44926

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/44926
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.
Decided On: Feb 22, 2007
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs (i)

Respondent

Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the application for condonation of delay of 13 days in preferring the above appeal is allowed, in view of the explanation contained in the cod application.2. now we take up the application of the revenue for stay of operation of the order of the commissioner (appeals) who has extended the benefit of exemption in terms of notification 21/2002-cus. dated 1-3-2002 under serial no. 357 of the table thereto, which covers "parts for repair of dredgers". all parts for repairs of dredgers irrespective of the heading under the customs tariff under which they fall for classification, are covered by serial no. 357 of the table to notification 21/2002. the case of the department is that since the goods in question are engines, they cannot be considered as parts in view of the hsn explanatory notes to section xvii.3. we find that no prima facie case for stay has been made out as prima facie it is not disputed that the goods are otherwise parts and prima facie they are parts for repairs of dredgers. we, therefore, dismiss the application.

Full Judgment

1. The application for condonation of delay of 13 days in preferring the above appeal is allowed, in view of the explanation contained in the COD application.

2. Now we take up the application of the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has extended the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002 under serial No. 357 of the table thereto, which covers "Parts for repair of dredgers". All parts for repairs of dredgers irrespective of the heading under the Customs Tariff under which they fall for classification, are covered by serial No. 357 of the table to Notification 21/2002. The case of the department is that since the goods in question are engines, they cannot be considered as parts in view of the HSN Explanatory Notes to Section XVII.3. We find that no prima facie case for stay has been made out as prima facie it is not disputed that the goods are otherwise parts and prima facie they are parts for repairs of dredgers. We, therefore, dismiss the application.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs (i) vs Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Customs Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.