Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Omkar Overseas Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 5 August, 2003

Ektara Exports Private Limited vs Shillong on 17 December, 2019

(i) It is submitted by learned Advocate that even if there is over valuation by the manufacturer/supplier benefit cannot be denied to the appellant unless it is by the reason of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Omkar Overseas Limited vs. Union of India reported in 2003 (156) ELT 167. It is also submitted that the factum of export by the Appellant is not disputed by the Department and Appellant has received foreign exchange as per price agreement with foreign buyers and hence there is no reason to discard the transaction value under the provisions of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delta Logistics vs Acc, Mumbai on 1 September, 2015

4. Learned counsel for appellant-exporter drew attention to decisions of the Tribunal in Mercantile India v Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2007 (215) ELT 158 (Tri-Chennai)], Malboro Electronics Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur [2005 (190) ELT 404(Tri-Del)], Ramayan Impex v Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Nhava Sheva [2005 (189) ELT 446 (Tri-Mum)], Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai v Prayag Exporters (P) Ltd [2003 (155) ELT 4 (SC)], Suresh Enterprises v Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2005 (179) ELT 466 (Tri-Mum)], Suresh Jhunjhunwala v Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Hyderabad [2005 (183) ELT 60(Tri-Mum)], Trustworth Enterprises v Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2008 (228) ELT 201(Tri-Chennai)], Vishwajyoti Impex v Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Mumbai [2009 (238) ELT 267(Tri-Mum)], Advance Exports v Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2007 (218) ELT 39(Tri-Ahd)], Commissioner v Advance Export [2010 (256) ELT A20 (SC)], Kobian ECS India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2003 (157) ELT 662 (Tri-Mumbai), Kanhaiya Exports (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [2006 (204) ELT 295 (Tri-Kol)], Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2009 (241) ELT 545(Tri-Bang)], Commissioner v Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd [2005(316)ELT A32(Kar)], Laxman Overseas v Union of India [2010 (252) ELT 513(Del)], Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd v Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2010 (258) ELT 534(Tri-Bang)], Kanji Shavji Parekh (Cal) P Ltd v Appraiser Customs, Postal Appraising Deptt [2010 (262) ELT 83(Cal)], Yashraj Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV [2013 (296) ELT 204 (Tri-Mum)], Kavia Carbons v Commissioner of Customs Tuticorin [2009 (243) ELT 547(Tri-Chennai)], Vrundavan Exports v Commissioner of Customs (Exp), Mumbai [2005 (191) ELT 1036(Tri-Mum)] and Commissioner v Vrundavan Export [2009 (240) ELT A42 (Bom)]. On behalf of the appellant-exporter learned Counsel averred before us that the dispute being specific to classification solely for availment of DEPB credit, the jurisdiction to initiate penal action vested exclusively with the authority under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and that the invoking of section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 was, for that very reason, improper.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1