Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. And Ruchi ... on 27 November, 2007

Yes vs Represented By : Shri Rajesh Rawal & Mr. ... on 8 October, 2013

4. Shri Rajesh Rawal (Advocate) and Shri Ruben George (Advocate) appeared on behalf of all the appellants and argued that there was no mis-declaration on the part of the main appellant as they are not responsible for the filing of IGM. It was their case that Crude Palm Oil of edible grade was declared as such as per the documents available with the shipping lines. It was also argued that as per Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962, there is no requirement that detailed description of the imported goods along with Carotene Value is required to be mentioned. He further emphasized that the carotene value was more than 500 mg. per kg. when the goods were dispatched from the supplier country. He relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vs. Ruchi Soya Industries, Indore, under which it has been held by the Honble High Court that carotene value of crude palm oil reduces on day to day basis. It was his case that there was a long gap between the crude palm oil loaded from abroad to the date when the samples were drawn. In view of the law laid down by Karnataka High Court, the Carotene value in the consignment could have reduced from more than 500 to less than 500.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Pnc Infratech Limited vs Union Of India Represented By Its on 4 August, 2015

3. As against the above order of the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, before the second respondent-Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 13.03.2015 and the said appeal was registered. The petitioner paid 7.5% of the duty imposed as pre-deposit for entertainment of the appeal. As the goods have not been cleared, the petitioner was given preference for the hearing of the appeal, as the Bill of Entry had been alive. However, the second respondent-appellate authority is guided by the ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, in the above said case of Gammon India Ltd., which was affirmed in the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ramky Infrastructure Limited, reported in 2013 (296) ELT 518 (Tri-Mumbai).
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

M/S.Caltex Gas India Private Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Tuticorin on 15 April, 2010

2. I have heard both sides. I find that the issue in dispute, namely, as to what is the quantity on which duty is liable to be paid stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunals decision in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2000 (121) E.L.T.109 (Tribunal)] and Commissioner of Customs & Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Vs Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. [2008 (224) E.L.T.477 (Tri.-Bang.)] holding that assessment of bulk liquid cargo is to be done only on the basis of shore tank quantity and not as per ship ullage report. The assessees have paid duty on the quantity shown in the ship ullage reports which is in excess of the quantity shown in the shore tank. Therefore, their claim for refund of excess duty has merit. I, therefore, hold that the assessees are entitled to refund of the excess duty paid subject to their satisfying the authorities below that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to their customers.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1