Gsp Shipping &Amp Logistics Agency vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Admn Airport) on 19 November, 2020
(ii). Gopal Agarwal Vs. CC, New Delhi [2015(326) ELT 593 (Tri. Del.)]
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)Documents citing
Dev Anand Agarwal vs Cc, New Delhi on 24 February, 2016
Nilkamal Ltd vs Nhava Sheva on 29 September, 2025
6. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the
'proper officer' had no option but to invoke provision for discard
of declared value for lack of specifics about the articles in the bill
of entry and to reject the declared value for want of material
enabling comparison to validate as 'transaction value' in terms of
section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and rule 3 of Customs
Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules,
2007. It was further submitted that rule 12 of Customs
Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules,
2007 allowed sufficient flexibility and, to that extent, lack of
explanation on the part of the importer sufficed to reject the
declared value. It is also submitted that the details of
contemporaneous imports had been relied upon for the purpose
of re-determination of the assessable value. He relied upon the
2
[2018 (11) TMI 1767 - CESTAT MUMBAI]
3
[(1) TMI 670 - CESTAT MUMBAI]
4
[2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC)]
5
[2011 (271) ELT 190 (Bom)]
C/86374-86375/2014
7
decision of the Tribunal in Anil Kumar Tiwari v. Commissioner
of Customs, Tuticorin6 and in Deve Anand Agarwal v.
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi7.
Diamond Display Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore-V on 22 January, 2025
7. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the
Tribunal in the matter of VK Agarwal (Supra), we do not find any
reason to differ, hence Appeal Nos. E/21168/2016 and E/21170/2016
are allowed. Further we find that Appeal No. E/21169/ 2016 is
infructuous and is disposed, accordingly.
Shashi Kumar Ceo vs Bangalore-V on 22 January, 2025
7. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the
Tribunal in the matter of VK Agarwal (Supra), we do not find any
reason to differ, hence Appeal Nos. E/21168/2016 and E/21170/2016
are allowed. Further we find that Appeal No. E/21169/ 2016 is
infructuous and is disposed, accordingly.
R G Venkatesh Md vs Bangalore-V on 22 January, 2025
7. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the
Tribunal in the matter of VK Agarwal (Supra), we do not find any
reason to differ, hence Appeal Nos. E/21168/2016 and E/21170/2016
are allowed. Further we find that Appeal No. E/21169/ 2016 is
infructuous and is disposed, accordingly.
M/S. Everest Ply & Veneers Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, Visakhapatnam on 25 October, 2016
5. I have heard both sides. The foremost issue that has to be addressed is whether the imposition of redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs is legal for the reason that the goods are not available for confiscation. The learned counsel for appellant has relied on the judgment laid in Dev Anand Agarwal Vs. CC, New Delhi [2016(337) ELT 397 (Tri. Del.)]. In the said case, the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held that no redemption fine can be imposed when the goods are not available for confiscation. In the present case, it is undisputed that the goods were not available for confiscation. Therefore following the decision laid in the case of Dev Anand Agarwal, I hold that the imposition of redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs is not within the provisions of law and therefore is set aside.
Sanjiv Goenka vs Bangalore-Iii on 23 January, 2025
3. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal
in the matter of VK Agarwal (Supra) and in the matter of M/s.
Diamond Display Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore vide Final
Order Nos. 20029-20031 of 2025 dated 22.01.2025 also, we
decided the matter on similar ground, we do not find any reason to
differ, hence Appeal of the Managing Director for dropping the penalty
is allowed.
1