Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: dehra dun act 1871 Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Page 9 of about 2,570 results (0.060 seconds)

Ar. Bhalchandra Chaware Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)9STT245

..... act to the tune of rs. 18,438/- under his revisional power. hence this appeal filed by the assessee disputing the enhanced penalty ..... . further he has imposed penalty of rs. 1500/- under section 76 and rs. 1000/- under section 77 of the service tax act. the assessee had also paid these penalties.2. the aforesaid order has been passed under section 84 of the finance act by the commissioner, central excise and customs, nashik and enhanced the penalty amount imposed under section 76 of the .....

Tex-age and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC169

..... dri in the case of m/s.vaishnodevi industries, in similar circumstances would also have to be accepted for the appellant, in view of section 14 of the customs act, 1962 and as well article 14 of the constitution which provides for fair and equal treatment in identical circumstances and equality before law.therefore, it appears that the ..... were not in any way, involved in the export of the goods. it was further submitted that penalties have been imposed under section 113(i) & (iii) of the customs act, 1962. section 113(i) relates to goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force, while section 113(iii) relates to any other goods. therefore, the commissioner ..... tex-age and rejected the depb credit of rs. 95,85,068/-. these goods were also ordered to be confiscated under section 113(d) & (i) of the customs act, 1962.however the goods were not available for confiscation. penalties of the amounts mentioned in the order above were imposed on the various applicants.4. the ld advocate shri .....

Santosh Textile and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(117)ECC350

..... , for any other reason) not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time he also referred section 36b of the central excise act. 1944 with regard to admissibility of micro-films and computer print outs as documents as evidence.with regard to remittance of full foreign exchange into india is ..... audit officers; in fact at page 24 of the impugned order the commissioner (adjudication) has held "in a case where departmental officers are also concerned with the act, when there is no allegation of collusion against the officers, allegation of mis-declaration or clandestine removal cannot be sustained. when the documents are admittedly in the ..... covered by group i and ii relate to alleged manipulation of export documents and consequent penal action under sections 114(i) and under section 117 of the customs act, 1962. notices covered by group iii and iv, on the other hand, relate to imports effected at nhava sheva port and mumbai customs house against transferable advance .....

Shri D.D. Gandhi, Al Hadi Impex and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(120)ECC302

..... in respect of money claim cannot be converted to a quasi criminal dispute of smuggling at the rigour of the administration - section 2(39) of the customs act, 1962. valuation (customs) - export - value accepted provisionally in the first instance and finally after pmv inquiry and thereafter depb license issued by dgft - ..... ibid, not an order under section 3 ibid - hence, impugned goods not prohibited goods liable to confiscation - penalty not sustainable - sections 113 & 114 of customs act, 1962.m. k. fisheries v. cc, cochin jurisdiction - duty entitlement pass book scheme (depb) - credit-rate of credit as sanctioned by dgft to be allowed ..... matter to dgft authorities. (b) confiscation and penalty - prohibited goods - mis-declaration - depb not covered by word 'license' under foreign trader (development and regulation) act, 1992 and claim for depb export not declaration for import, hence, alleged mis-declaration not covered under rule 14(2) for foreign trade (regulation) rules, 1993 - .....

Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC431

..... are chargeable by reference to their value, the value of such excisable goods was required to be determined in accordance with the provision of the customs act, 1962 and customs tariff act, 1975. thus section 3 sought to make a clear cut distinction between domestic unit other than 100% eou and 100% eou and provided for separate ..... provision in the parent statute and the other which does not, we have to adopt the former, because adopting the latter will make the rule ultra vires the act. the court further held that while interpreting the statute we should follow the mimansa principles of interpretation i.e. any system which solves the difficulties should be used ..... and sold in india whether with or without permission of the development commissioner, the assessment shall be made under proviso to section 3(1) of the central excise act, 1944 and the exemption under notification 125/84 shall not be applicable.18. the matter is returned back to the division bench for hearing on other issues if .....

international Express Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(122)ECC175

..... and the respondent commissioner was duty-bound to fully satisfy himself as to whether it was really necessary to act on such recommendation. the ld. advocate submitted that the statements of shri kamlesh gandhi, partner have been totally misquoted and are absolutely exculpatory and the ..... commissioner, proceeded to, originally, in an ex-parte fashion, suspended the licence on 8.12.2006. the ld. advocate submitted that the commissioner has not acted independently but on the recommendation of the director general and the cha licence is suspended. there has to be an independent reasoning and impartial exercise of mind ..... investigation by the commissioner of customs (import) acc, mumbai and dri. mumbai and hence, the adjudicating authority had clearly mixed up the issues and had acted beyond the scope of the original suspension order.4. he, therefore, submitted that there was no reason to observe that the charged cha miserably failed to .....

Diambel N.V. Antwerk Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2008)(124)ECC201

..... were grounds to confiscate the goods. non-imposition of the personal penalty on the appellants herein would indicate that the appellants were not knowingly concerned with the act of clearance of goods on forged licence.13. the commissioner has erred in holding that the ownership in the said goods should transfer in favour of the ..... without any offer of redemption fine. however, he refrains from imposing any penalty on the appellants herein under the provisions of section 112 of the customs act, 1962.12. when the commissioner is coming to a finding that the importer was actively and deliberately concerned with the forgery and in para 10 of ..... gold/platinum jewellery and articles thereof and the policy did not permit free import of rough diamonds. section 3(2) of the foreign trade (development and regulation act, 1992 provides that the central government may by order published in the official gazette make provisions for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or .....

A.R. Marines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... by the hon'ble bombay high court.4. ld. dr however submits that in this case, even though, the events might have occurred in 2001-02 penalties under the customs act have been imposed by the additional commissioner and jt. commissioner for aiding and abetting the mis-declaration and fraudulent claim of draw back by the exporters. all these orders have .....

M/S. Ina Bearings (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (impor ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... . collector - 2000 (115) elt 320 (tri.) this tribunal has held that refund arising out of correction of clerical or arithmetical error under section 154 of the customs act, the limitation period provided under section 27 is not applicable to such refund. the same view was confirmed by the honble apex court. 7. accordingly, i find ..... or any officer of customs under this act, or errors arising their from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the central government, the board of such officer of customs or ..... . thereafter, they filed a refund claim of the excess amount paid by them at the time of assessment of the bill of entry. section 154 of the customs act which is reproduced as under:- 154. correction of clerical errors etc. - clerical or arithmetical mistake in any decision or order passed by the central government the board .....

Patel Engineering Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import) ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... was denied, demand of duty was confirmed. the paver finisher was confiscated allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty under section 112a of the customs act, 1962 was also imposed. the said order is in challenge before us. 4. shri sridharan, ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant before us and contended as ..... exemption notification at the time of import, whereas violation of the post-import condition would enable the customs authorities to take action under section 111(o) of the customs act, 1962. 9. there is yet another example of an exemption under epcg scheme vide notification no. 49/2000-cus., dated 27-4-2000. here again, there is ..... the appellant by executing the bond to that effect. this fact has clarified in the show-cause notice itself in para 32.3 as under - 32.3 this act of the importer is in contravention to its undertaking filed by themselves at the time of import clearance before the customs authority in this regard, violating condition no. .....