Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.03 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Edhayam Frozen Foods on 4 July, 2008

Commissioner Of Customs (Exports), ... vs M/S. Asvini Fisheries (P) Ltd on 1 May, 2014

It is seen that the Honble Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Edhayam Frozen Foods  2008 (230) ELT 225 (Mad.). So, the issue is no longer res integra and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that cess is not leviable on export of prawns/shrimps. The learned Authorized Representative on behalf of Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) also directed to refund the amount without considering the limitation and other provisions of law under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this context, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent fairly submits that the proceeding against the refund claim is not involved in the present appeal. He submits that refund of the amount would arise when they file the refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submits that the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is a consequential benefit which will arise after filing the refund claim.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Hindustan Lever Limited vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2015

In the mean while, touching upon the very such same subject matter, a Division Bench of this court passed a judgement in Commissioner of Customs v. Edhayam Frozen Foods, 2008 - TIOL-356-HC-Mad-CUS, wherein it has been held that the expression fish contained in Schedule 7 to the Agricultural Produce Act, 1940 would not include within itself prawns and shrimps. Very recently, following the above said judgement, yet another Division Bench of this court in The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s.Universal Cold Storage Limited, 2015-TIOL-755-HC, Mad-CUS, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs (Exports) vs M/S. Sri Sai Sea Food on 29 August, 2024

'42.In that case before the Apex Court, an importer who imported consignment of wool materials, claimed that it is wool waste and hence not liable for customs duty as per a Notification. The department was of the opinion that what was imported was not wool waste, but wool sleeve and imposed duty. The experts gave a report that it was not possible to give an opinion by visual observations of the material and that there was no specification laid down for the same by the ISI or International Standard Organisation. In those circumstances of the case, the Tribunal noted that the question would have to be understood on the basis of the trade understanding. Thus, the question involved in that case was whether the goods imported is woollen waste or woollen sleeve, that is a question of fact. But in the present case, the question whether the expression 'fish' includes prawns/'shrimps' cannot be regarded as question of fact,but can only be regarded as an issue involving interpretation of an entry, which can be regarded as a question of law.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

V.S.Exim Private Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 6 September, 2010

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also in support of such contention relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 2008 (230) ELT 225 (Mad.) in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin V. Edhayam Frozen Foods wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has dealt with the issue as to whether Prawns/Shrimps are different from fish for the purpose of Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 and has after elaborate discussion answered the issue against the revenue. The Hon'ble Division Bench has in Para 40, Page 235 of the judgment clearly held that the expression fish contained in schedule 7 of the Agricultural Produce Cess would not include within itself Prawns/Shrimps.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Unilever Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 12 September, 2016

The petitioner also placed reliance reliance on the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs-IV, Chennai, in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of EDHAYAM FROZEN FOODS (supra), by stating that the Cess is no longer been collected on export of prawns, shrimps etc. as Agricultural Produces Cess Act, 1940, has been repealed with effect from 25.09.2006. However, with regard to the refund for the period during which Cess was collected i.e. July 2004 to June 205, the respondent has not passed any orders.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1