Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commissioner Of Customs, Coimbatore vs Kausalya Impex on 13 January, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


Appeal Nos.C/32/2002 to C/37/2002

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.4 to 9/2001-(CBE) (CUS) (DEP) (GVN) dt. 10.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]

For approval and signature:

Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)


1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT	 (Procedure) Rules, 1982?					      :

2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?				      	      :

3.	Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								      :

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							      :

	
Commissioner of Customs,  Coimbatore
Appellant/s

         
       Versus
     

Kausalya Impex
Respondent/s

Appearance :

Shri N.J.Kumaresh, SDR Shri K.Balasubramanian, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 13.1.2009 Date of decision : 13.1.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The department is aggrieved by the acceptance of the Special Import Licence produced by the respondents for covering the import of fur cloth before the lower appellate authority  the department is of the view that the licence should have been produced before the assessing authority for his satisfaction and it was not open to the lower appellate authority to have accepted the Special Import Licence produced by the respondents.

2. On hearing both sides, we find this is a flimsy objection raised by the Revenue in the absence of any dispute that the SIL produced by the respondents did not cover the import of the goods in question etc. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, uphold the same and reject the appeals.


		(Dictated and pronounced in open court)





(P.KARTHIKEYAN)		       (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
    MEMBER (T)				     VICE-PRESIDENT  



gs



1


2