Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Cus. (P) vs Artherton Engg. Pvt. Ltd. on 10 January, 2001

Atherton Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And ... on 22 September, 2005

11. Similar dispute relating to classification of the same item also existed in respect of the same importer in Mumbai. Mumbai Customs, however, assessed the item in question under 8th 05.11 against which the party went in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the classification under Customs Tariff Heading No. 23.09, and allowed the appeal of the party with consequential relief to them. The Department went to the CESTAT against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, and CESTAT, Mumbai in its Order No. 128/2001-WZB/C-II dated 10.01.01 . in the case of Commissioner of Customs (P) Mumbai v. Artherton Engg. Pvt. Ltd. decided the classification under Customs Tariff Heading No. 05.11.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Atherton Engineering Co.(Pvt.) Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 March, 2010

It should be remembered that the above decision of the Supreme Court is the final decision on the particular consignment in issue between the parties involved in that litigation. I do not read that Supreme Court decision as an authority for the proposition that any product imported and declared as Brine Shrimp eggs would necessarily have to be classified in the 'other category' under the heading 0511 for reasons given by me below.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Sri Vickram Jathia Ex Director vs Kolkata(Admn Airport) on 26 June, 2024

20. Another point to be noted is that on an identical issue, in respect of the same appellant, a decision was rendered by the Mumbai Tribunal holding that the product will fall under CTH 0511. This was challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed their appeal [2002 (144) E.L.T. A293 (S.C)]. Since the goods in question viz. "Artemia Cyst" was identical in respect of the same appellant, it can be safely concluded that the issue reached finality when the Appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is nothing to indicate that, factually, the present case is in any way different from their Mumbai case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Atherton Engineering Co Pvt Ltd vs Kolkata(Admn Airport) on 26 June, 2024

20. Another point to be noted is that on an identical issue, in respect of the same appellant, a decision was rendered by the Mumbai Tribunal holding that the product will fall under CTH 0511. This was challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed their appeal [2002 (144) E.L.T. A293 (S.C)]. Since the goods in question viz. "Artemia Cyst" was identical in respect of the same appellant, it can be safely concluded that the issue reached finality when the Appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is nothing to indicate that, factually, the present case is in any way different from their Mumbai case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1