Mumbai Court June 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
ingersoll-rand (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC204Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal hearing No. S/49-416782-AIR, dated 10-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants who are the manufacturers of air and gas compressors and rock drilling equipment imported one case said to contain 18 Torque Wrenches valued at Rs. 66,068/cif and sought clearance against their Import Licence No. P/D/1940334, dated 24-11-1981 which was valid for import of permissible items set out in Appendix 5 of the Policy AM 82 (for short 'the Policy'1). the Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the imported goods were pneumatic tools falling in the category of 'capital goods' and therefore, requires a specific licence and the licence produced was not valid.3. After the issue of show cause notice and after the receipt of reply to the show cause notice, the Deputy Collector of Customs, who held the inquiry did not accept the appellants' contention that the goods imported by ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Jayant Oil Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC243
1. This appeal arises as under: The respondents herein imported 1053 drums palm oil valued at Rs. 14,22,925/-cif and sought clearance against 8 REP licences. They also placed reliance on para 131(1) of the Policy AM-81 and para 138(1) of the Policy AM-82.2. The Customs House objected to the clearance on the ground that one of the licences, which was subject to value and restriction, had been already utilised for the import of Mutton Tallow. In respect of the other licences the objection was that the goods were canalised items and therefore not permissible to be imported by any agency other than the canalising agency.3. The Collector of Customs, who held the adjudication after duly complied with the procedural aspects held that the goods valued at Rs. 39,401/- was covered by the licence and the goods to the extent of Rs. 13,83,523.90 have been imported without cover of a valid licence. He therefore ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-. On ap...
Sun Exports Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC335Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are four matters in which Revision Applications have been filed against orders passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.On the setting up of this Tribunal, these have been transferred here and are being treated as appeals before this Tribunal.2. There are two items of import involved in these appeals, namely, Thiamine Mono-nitrate and Thiamine Hydrochloride. As per the Show Cause Notices issued to the appellants, the import of these items was not covered by a valid import licence as they fall in the category of Vitamin B-1, a canalised item and were, therefore, not Items undr OGL for actual users which could be imported against such a licence.3. We have heard Shri S.D. Nankani, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri S.P. Prabhu, JDR on behalf of the department.4. The board stand taken by the appellants, which covers the import of both the products, is that Appendix 9 of AM-81 Policy, which refers to Vitamin B-1 as a canalised item would cover only Thiamine Sim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›