Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu succession amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 23 Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Page 1 of about 106 results (0.215 seconds)

Bhilwara Spinners Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... argued, bearing in mind that all the imports in question were made before 4.11.1999. 13. the learned sdr has opposed this argument. according to him, the amendment was only prospective in operation. we note that the above alternative plea, which was not raised by the appellant in the previous round of litigation, has been taken in ..... this aspect. according to him, the departments proceedings for recovery of sad on the imported goods are saved by the relevant provisions of the general clauses act, 1897. 16. after considering the submissions, we find that the view taken by the tribunals larger bench on the question, whether the licensing authority has power to ..... issue as well. in this connection, the learned counsel has argued that the omission of section 3a from the customs tariff act without any saving clause was not even saved by section 6 of the general clauses act, 1897 inasmuch as omission is different from repeal. this argument has been contested by the learned sdr on the strength of .....

East West Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Cu ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... overseas, naman enterprises, devanti overseas, ankit international and m/s amrit laxmi machine works under the provisions of section 28 of the customs act by denying the benefit under notification no. 149/95-cus dated 19/09/1995 as amended read with duplicate advance licence no. 0111434 dated 22/11/1999 and original advance licence no. 0304593 dated 28/11/1996; (iii ..... ) impose penalties under section 114a of the customs act on the above mentioned firms for evasion of customs duty by willful mis-statement and suppression .....

B.V. Jewels Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT589Tri(Mum.)bai

..... to take specific permission from the development commissioner, the powers of which has been delegated to the development commissioner vide the said para, as prior to this amendment in the handbook the powers rested with seepz board. the investigations also revealed that there is no production in m/s. b.v. star since june, ..... seized because it was inseparable.there is no other allegation regarding this quantity of gold. further, the confiscation is ordered as per section 113 of the customs act.invocation of this section is totally misplaced as it applies only to goods which are prohibited for export. since the diamond jewellery is not prohibited for exports, ..... s/shri suresh mehta and suken mehta had indulged in unauthorized substitution of diamonds to cover up the diamonds which they had fraudulently removed from seepz. this act of substitution is also established from the fact that shri suresh mehta even after the stock taking was over, tried to substitute high value diamonds imported by .....

Pennar Industries Ltd. and Mr. Ch. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2005)(186)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai

..... deec imports. exim policy scheme would be the licensing authority & dgft whose decisions would be found the center. there was a valid import licence and subsequent to the amendment in the licence which effectively changed the products and also the nature of exports to be effected viz third party exports, would clearly accept the position that when an importer ..... and the goods were taken to their isnapur unit and there they were entered in the relevant raw material register. the imports were made under notification 30/97 as amended on 1.4.1997 which allows actual users to import raw materials duty free to be converted into specified finished products and exported as per export obligations given in ..... consequent to the findings, the impugned order demanding the duty is set aside, without going into the question of no demand being made under section 28 of the customs act 1962.11. since no duty demands are being upheld, there is no case or cause for any penalty under the provisions, of customs .....

Sultanali A. Lallani Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1989)(39)ELT596Tri(Mum.)bai

..... at by the adjudicating authority. the bench observed: "it is now well established that in domestic enquiries the enquiry authorities and statutory authorities under the relevant acts will be sole judges of facts, and sufficiency of evidence cannot be urged as ground for interference with the validity or the legality of the orders of ..... department, the statement made by the person from whom the contraband article were seized can be looked into. the scheme of the act, therefore, clearly indicated that the two proceedings have to be dealt with independently on each other on such material as is available and permissible in these ..... is available, it may be admissible in regular court of law in which the admissibility and relevance is determined with reference to the provisions of the evidence act. in a criminal prosecution, the accused need not open his mouth nor make any statement while in the proceedings for adjudication or confiscation before the customs .....

Rajeev Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1999)(114)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai

..... of goods must be regulated according to the policy in force at the time of such importation. as we have seen even by applying the later policy, it can be successfully argued that the import was legal.shashank sea foods v. union of india [1996 (88) e.l.t. 626 (s.c.)] dealt with the jurisdiction of the customs ..... part of the statute in which it is transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating statute." it is clear from this that legislation by incorporation takes place when the provisions of one statute are ..... the benefit of the licence can be denied. the import licence is an authority permitting import of goods which would otherwise be prohibited. an exemption notification under the customs act provides exemption from duty, either to a class of goods or to goods imported in a specific case. whenever imports are made under the deec scheme or similar schemes .....

Ajay Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... that section 111(m) does not apply for not mentioning the correct particulars of bills of lading or date of shipment. (vi) section 111(m) as it stood prior to amendment by act 36 of 1973 read as under: any dutiable or prohibited goods which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under this ..... covered by the expression "goods which do not correspond in any other particular with the entry made under this act" employed in amended section 111(m) as it stood after 1973.7. the order of confiscation under section 111(m) of the customs act, 1962 as arrived at therefore cannot be upheld.8. the commissioner has come to the conclusion that the bill ..... that there is a difference in material particulars which brought the matter within the mischief of section 111(m) of the act. but in view of the fact that the term 'value' was not in section 111(m) before the amendment of 1973 this difference on the basis of value could not be said to be a difference in material particulars within .....

Kores India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1990)(52)ELT137Tri(Mum.)bai

..... . mondal, the learned sdr on behalf of the department, on the other hand, contended that sub-rule (9) of rule 56a, as it was worded prior to amendment, leaves no ambiguity. it draws the dividing line as between the manufacturer availing of modvat credit vis-a- vis those availing proforma credit. a manufacturer availing of modvat credit ..... out under sub-rule (9) of rule 56a, so long as the inputs were eligible for proforma credit under rule 56a before commencement of the central excise tariff act, 1985, such credit shall continue to be allowed. his next argument was that it is not the case of the department that the applicants were availing of ..... it is provided that if proforma credit was available in respect of raw materials or component parts under rule 56a, before the commencement of the central excise tariff act, 1985, such credit shall continue to be allowed notwithstanding any change made either in the nomenclature or classification of the goods or in rule 56a. hence notwithstanding the .....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maradia Steel (P) Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1992)LC374Tri(Mum.)bai

..... ). from these provisions, it is clear that these rules being independent in their application, cannot be read in conjunction with section 11a of the central excise act. (ii) even the subsequent amendment carried out to rule 57-i providing for the period of limitation clearly indicates that the govt. did not want to disturb the independent set up of ..... it may, when there are now conflicting views of two different high courts on the same question, namely whether rule 57-i prior to amendment is subject to the provision of section 11a of the act, we agree that there is an area of doubt to be resolved. for this purpose, we would deem it proper to place the proposal ..... law formulated are the following: (i) whether rule 57-i of the central excise rules, as it stood prior to amendment, should be read in conjunction with section 11a of the act? (ii) section 11a of the act provides for recovery of duties in certain cases, while the provisions of rule 57-i relating to recovery of wrongly availed modvat .....

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(114)ECC49

..... was held that components of colour t.v. brought in unassembled condition for convenience of handling and transportation cannot be regarded as complete colour t.v.either before or after amendment of rule 2(a) of the interpretative rules as assembly of components of colour t.v. involves complex manufacturing process and that parts brought under different bill of entries cannot ..... available and accordingly duty was required to be paid and goods were liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of the customs act, 1962 and importer liable for penalty under section 112(a) and / or (b) of the customs act, 1962.2. it was further found that earlier appellants have imported similar parts of mobile phones under seven bill of entries which .....