Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Kores (India) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 7 November, 2013

Pcs Technology Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (I), Mumbai on 8 December, 2016

7. The issue for consideration is whether the appellants are eligible for the benefit to reduced customs duty under PIR, 1986, for the machines and equipment imported under the nine Bills of Entry, during the period 1989-90. The requirement of submission of statement, indicating details of the goods imported together with other necessary documents, within three months from the date of clearance for home consumption of the last consignment of the goods or within extended period, was inserted and brought on statute book for the first time through amending Notn. No.17/92-Cus dated 07.01.1992 by insertion of Regulation 7 in PIR, 1986. Even the show cause notice, in para 2, alleges that clause 7 of PIR now requires to submit reconciliation statement within three months from the date of import, when clause 7 was not in vogue when imports were made. The Tribunal in the case of Kores India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, reported in 2016-TIOL-664-CESTAT-MUM has held that when the regulation was not in the statute when the goods were imported, such new regulation cannot be pressed in the service for denying the benefit of PIR. This judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. We, therefore, hold that Regulation 7 of PIR inserted w.e.f. 07.01.1992 would have prospective effect and cannot be made applicable for the imports made during the period prior thereto. We find that, in the instant case, imports were made in December, 1989 and January, 1990 and SCN dated 31.10.97 was forwarded to the Appellants by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, vide his letter dated 14.09.2005. Tribunal in the case of Creative Industries P.Ltd. vs C.C.& C.EX (A-II), Hyderabad, reported in 2008 (228) ELT 379 (Tri.Bang) has held that when no evidence by the Revenue was brought to show that equipments imported under PIR has not been installed, belated denial of benefit under PIR is not permissible. The said judgment would also apply to the case on hand.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Rs Infra Transmission Ltd vs C.C.E., Jaipur-I on 14 March, 2014

Further Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Campher Drugs & Linimantes-1989(40)ELT276(SC), CCE, Mumbai Vs Bell Granite 2006(198)ELT61(SC) and Cores India Vs CCE-2004(174)ELT7(SC) has stated that positive evidence is required to be produced by the Department before the appellant could be met with the penalty under Section 11-AC of the Act. Similar findings have been given by my predecessor in the case of M/s. KEC Industries Ltd. Bhiwadi vide Order-in-Appeal No.331(DK)CE/JPR-I/2009 dated 17.11.2009. In absence of any evidence of clandestine clearances of short found finished goods, I following the above said orders of the higher appellate authorities set aside the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 11-AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant-1.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1