Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Direx Systems Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs M/S. Direx Systems Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Oct 20, 2009

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941672

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/941672
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Oct 20, 2009
Case Number: Appeal No. C/295 of 2003 and C/CO/4 of 2005
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

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Advocate Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Appellant. Ms. Sridevi, Advocate for the Respondents.

Respondent

M/S. Direx Systems Ltd.

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram the issue in dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the benefit of notification no. 17/2001-cus. dated 1.3.2001 is available to parts of image intensifier system. 2. on hearing both sides we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees in series of decisions of the tribunal namely commissioner of customs vs. bet medical (p) ltd. 2006 (202) elt 97, commissioner of customs vs. philips medical systems india ltd. 2007 (214) elt 559 and final order no.1005/2009 dated 17.8.2009 in the case of commissioner of customs vs. erbis engineering co. ltd. 3. following the ratio of the above orders we hold that there is no ground for interference of the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the same. 4. cross-objection is in the nature of comments upon/reply to the revenue s appeal and is therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

The issue in dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 is available to parts of image intensifier system.

2. On hearing both sides we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees in series of decisions of the Tribunal namely Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bet Medical (P) Ltd. 2006 (202) ELT 97, Commissioner of Customs Vs. Philips Medical Systems India Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 559 and Final Order No.1005/2009 dated 17.8.2009 in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Erbis Engineering Co. Ltd.

3. Following the ratio of the above orders we hold that there is no ground for interference of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the same.

4. Cross-objection is in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue s appeal and is therefore dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs M/S. Direx Systems Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; t...