Advanced Search Results

Pck Buderus (India) Tool Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT94Tri(Chennai)

the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 85,000/- (Eighty Five Thousand only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousands only) of M/s. PCK Buderus (India) Tool … product." 2.2) the item of import namely alloy steel bars satisfy the chemical composition criteria laid down in chapter 72 of customs tariff and consequently fulfill the technical characteristic condition in the sense that export product were … against orders. 13. In continuation of his earlier statement he stated on 26.03.96, that opinion was given without visual inspection of cargo and requested for

Commissioner of Customs, (Prev.) Gujarat Vs. Reliance Petroleum Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 2(1), 14, 16, 18 and 25(1); ;Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Rules 5 and 9(2)

Reported in : 2008(129)ECC103; 2008(155)LC103(SC); 2008(227)ELT3(SC); JT2008(7)SC299; 2008(8)SCALE81; (2008)7SCC220; 2008(4)Supreme157.

Central Government, in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, being satisfied that it was necessary in the public interest so to do, made further amendment in notification … said item was imported in a dismantled condition in 146 packages showing the consignment to be falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 8426.19 and 8427.90 respectively of the Customs Tariff.6. Respondent claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty

Om Prakash and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 9A, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21; Customs Act, 1962; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 2(a), 155, 436, 173; Evidence Act - Section 25

1. Two sets of matters have been heard together, one relating to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the other involving the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the issue in both sets … 9 shall be deemed to be non-cognizable within the meaning of that Code. (2) Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of prosecution, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise … us to the next question as to meaning of the expression “non-cognizable”. 26. Section 2(i) Cr.P.C. defines a “non-cognizable offence”, in respect whereof a police

Tofan Singh Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

thereafter came to the conclusion that the NDPS Act, being a penal statute, is in contradistinction to the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944, whose dominant object is 2 to protect the revenue of the State, … necessary safeguards against arbitrary search, seizure and arrest, or else it would fall foul of the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution. He argued that the NDPS Act was penal in nature, and contained regulatory provisions as … substantially innocent but in effect guilty in import. However, fanciful claims, unreasonable 26 apprehensions and vague possibilities cannot be the hiding ground for an accused

Collectors of Customs Vs. J.K. Batteries and ors.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (1985)(20)ELT89TriDel

manganese dioxide (MnO2). The Assistant Collector did not accept the importers' claim. He invoked Chapter note 2 to Chapter 26 of the C.T.A. 1975 and classified the goods under Heading No. 25.01/32(3) and charged duty at 60%+15% ad … Government of India issued a show cause notice dated 5-9-1981 to J.K. Batteries under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The dispute involved in the other Appeal No. 578/82-C is similar.M/s. Union Carbide, Calcutta imported Battery Grade Manganese

Vikram Ispat Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Excise

rate of 50% of each of the duties of Customs, which would be leviable Under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962(52 of 1962) read with any other Notifi. for the time being in farce issued under Sub-section of Section … at per with iron ore and included in the same chapter heading 26.01. further Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 26 says that "heading Nos. 26.01 to 26.17 not, however, include minerals which have been submitted to process not

TajuddIn Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (1991)LC148Tri(Chennai)

as crockery, toilet requisites, wearing apparels, miscellaneous goods all valued at Rs. 11,462/- under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act' for short) besides a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 112 of the Act. On 15-2-1988 … crockery, wearing apparels, toilet requisites etc. on the ground that they were notified goods kept in violation of Chapter IVA and releasing the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5000/-, the appellant is not contesting

Flora Wall Coverings Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : Customs

Reported in : (2003)(89)ECC677

for violation of the provisions of Customs Notification 13/81 dtd. 9.2.81 and provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) The duty of Rs. 4,30,300 paid by them under TR6 challan d td. 2.12.97 should not be … of the liabilities. Section 140 of the Customs Act provides that 'if the person committing an offence under Chapter XVI is a company, every person who, at the time of offence was committed, was responsible to the … the same impugned Order-in-Original No. 24/2002-Commr/Cus/Adjn dtd. 30.4.2002 and related O-I-O No. 26/2002-Commr/Cus/Adjn dtd.30.4.2002. M/s. Flora Wall Coverings Ltd (hereinafter referred to as FWC) were

Usha Micro-processors Controls Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1988)(16)LC23Tri(Delhi)

them to show cause notice was issued to the appellants Section 111(d), (1), (m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962.They were also asked to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated under upon them under Section … filed on 7.3.1986. On the Bill of Entry they have clearly indicated that the goods are assessable under Chapter 85.18/27 read with Notification No.67/85 dated 17.3.1985 at the rate of 25%. They have also paid duty of … clients have replied the query of 22.5.1986 vide letter No. UMCL/IMP/86 dated 26.5.1986 received by the Asst. Collector's office on 27.5.1986, copy of the same

Reliance Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Miscellaneous

Reported in : (2004)(174)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are importers of iron ore pallets/iron ore lumps falling under Chapter 26 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at Revdanda port. Ocean going 'foreign mother vessel' carrying the import cargo … the imported cargo at Vikram Jetty, a declared place of landing, for unloading/loading of import cargo under the Customs Act, 1962. Following expenses are incurred on these operation: a) Expenses towards use of payloaders and also masnual cleaning of