Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (1.03 seconds)

Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... vs M/S. Olectra Greentech Limited on 14 June, 2024

(7) Appeal No. C/30081/2024 3.3 We further find that in various decisions reported by either side that it is the possibility of use of product against the product exported which has been considered, as criteria for permitting import of product. In Commissioner of Customs (export), Nhavasheva V/s. Sparkling Traders Pvt Ltd. as reported in 2019 (368) ELT 961 (Tri.-Mum) ascorbic acid having multiple applications in pharmaceutical formulation food product etc, was allowed as "corrosion inhibitor". The expert opinion was considered sufficient in this regard to allow the benefit of exemption Notification No. 40/2006-customs pertaining DFI Scheme. It was also pointed out in the course of the decision that importer need not to prove nexus between imported goods and input used in export product so long as imported product was capable of being used under description of license. Actual use in export product was also considered as relevant and it sufficed if capability of being used by the product imported existed. Further in Unibourne Food Ingredients LLP delivered vide Final Order No. A/10255/2022 decided on 17.03.022 this Bench while dealing with duty free benefits to vital Wheat Gluten flour under Custom Notification No. 19/2015, (which pertains to DFIA Scheme), considered non mention of Wheat Gluten in DFIA no bar when wheat flour description existed in the documents. The Bench held the appellant is only required to satisfy that the product description mentioned in DFIA, was capable of use and there stipulation in Notification 19/2015 that material should be actually used in export product did not exist. During course of its decision, the bench relied upon the decision of Commissioner of Customs Calcutta Vs. G.C Jain as reported in 2011 (269) ELT 307 (S.C) to hold that the term used as "material" required for manufacture of export products would encompass such items also which are not only directly used or but are usable as such in the manufacturing process of the industry." In 2019 (367) ELT 335 (Bom.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K S Enterprises vs Mundra Customs on 20 September, 2023

During course of its decision, the bench relied upon the decision of Commissioner of Customs Calcutta Vs. G.C Jain as reported in 2011 (269) ELT 307 (S.C) to hold that the term used as "material" required for manufacture of export products would encompass such items also which are not only directly used or but are usable as such in the manufacturing process of the industry." In 2019 (367) ELT 335 (Bom.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cmr Chiho Industries India Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2021

37. The decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. G.C.Jain, reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 307 shall also need to be referred to at this stage where dispute was whether Butyl Acrylate Monomer (BAM) can be said to be an adhesive for the purpose of allowing the duty free clearances against advance license issued under the DEEC scheme.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Cmr Chiho Industries India Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2021

37. The decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. G.C.Jain, reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 307 shall also need to be referred to at this stage where dispute was whether Butyl Acrylate Monomer (BAM) can be said to be an adhesive for the purpose of allowing the duty free clearances against advance license issued under the DEEC scheme.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs Central Excise ... vs Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy on 3 May, 2023

Further, as observed in G.C. Jain (supra), the words and expressions, unless defined in the statute have to be construed in the sense in which persons dealing with them understand i.e., as per trade understanding and usage. Yet further, there is no fixed test or static parameter for correct classification of a product and it essentially depends on the meaning assigned to it by the persons concerned with it. One of the essential factors for determining whether a product falls under Chapter 30 or not is as to whether the product is understood as a pharmaceutical product in common parlance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Fortune Marketing Private Limited vs Acc, Mumbai on 4 April, 2016

Mumbai)]; Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Jyoti Industries [2007 (209) ELT 180 (P&H)]; Neotric Informatique Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva [2015 (318) ELT 701 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; Devraj M. Salian v. Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai 2015 (316) ELT 139 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. G.C. Jain [2011 (269) ELT 307 (S.C.)]; Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd [1996 (87) ELT 12 (SC); Indo-International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1981 (8) ELT 325 (SC)]; Northern Plastic Ltd v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC)]; Densons Pultretaknik v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2003 (155) ELT 211 (SC)]; Uniworth Textiles Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi Mumbai v. Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (202) ELT 213 (SC)]; Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Acer India Pvt Ltd [2007 (218) ELT 17 (SC)] and BPL Mobile Communications Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai [2000 (126) ELT 986 (Tribunal)].
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next