Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Siemens Public Communication ... vs Cc(Airport), Kolkata on 15 January, 2001

Kothari Filaments vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port), ... on 19 April, 2002

8. [Contra per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The plea for quashing redemption fine and penalties is made on the ground that the Commissioner has allowed re-export of imported goods and once re-export of imported goods is permitted imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not legally permissible. This submission that fine and penalty are not permissible in cases where re-export of imported goods is permitted has been raised relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. CCE reported in [1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C)] and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Siemens Public Communications v. CC, Airport, Calcutta - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 623 (T) = 2001 (43) RLT 57 (CEGAT-Kolkata). I am afraid, the above cited decision of the Supreme Court and Tribunal are not applicable to the present case.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Cc vs Guru Electronics Singapore (Pvt.) Ltd. on 30 January, 2004

He also relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd. v. CC, 2001 (75) ECC 163 (T) : 2001 (137) ELT 623 (T) and pleaded that the order of Commissioner is correct in allowing re-export of the goods. He also raised minor objections stating that in Form CA3 at Column 7, the answer to the question 'whether the decision or Order appealed against involves any question having a relation to rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment' is 'no', whereas in show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs, value has been disputed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hemant Bhai R. Patel vs Commissioner Of Customs on 13 February, 2003

In Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd. v. CC (Airport), Calcutta, 2001 (137) E.L.T. 623 (Tri.-Kolkata), Eastern Bench, Kolkata took the view that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Supreme Court in Siemens Ltd., and the other decisions referred above and it was held that when the Commissioner had given an option for reshipment of the goods back to the supplier, redemption fine and penalty imposed by him were not justified.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Guru Ispat Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port) on 4 July, 2002

"5. We have heard the submissions made from both the sides. During the course of arguments the Id. Advocate appearing for the appellants made it clear that the appellants have opted for re-export of the goods. Accordingly, they have challenged the order of the Commissioner imposing the redemption fine and penalty for the said re-export, which according to the appellants is not permissible to be imposed in view of the various case laws relied upon by them. It is seen that in case of Siemens Ltd. v. CC - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.), their Lordships have held that since goods have been allowed to be re-exported, neither redemption fine nor duty was required to be paid. The Tribunal in the case of HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd. - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 367 (T) has held that no redemption fine is imposable when re-export of the goods is allowed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next