Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Food Corporation Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 20 February, 1984

Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Collector Of Customs on 22 December, 1987

Again, in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs, Madras [1984 (15) E.L.T. 417], this Tribunal held that grant of refund is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act and this Section provides a limitation period. The appellants could not claim a higher refund at the stage of appeal before the Tribunal as compared to what they claimed before the Assistant Collector.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hindsutan Copper Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 February, 1987

6. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned SDR, submitted that, as the learned Counsel for the appellants has pleaded, that there was violation of the principles of natural justice, before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the matter may be remanded to him for de_ novo consideration. On the merits of the matter, Shri Gopinath referred us to his arguments in the matter of 'Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay' reported in '1984 (17) ELT 180' and to the arguments he advanced in the appeal, disposed of by Order No. 205/8-5-82, dated 29.10.1985, (Shri Dalip Singh, Jalandhar City v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay) and reiterated the same arguments.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Organic Chemical Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 March, 1987

7. The learned Consultant stated that the demand raised is also time barred. He stated that until 1979, the PVC resin was being assessed under 15A(1)(ii). It was only after the issue of Tariff Advice that the practice of assessment was changed. The demand was raised for November 1978 till May 1979 and first show cause notice was issued on 7-5-1979, and a second show cause notice for the same period was issued on 29-9-1980. He pleaded that the first show cause notice was very perfunctory and it is the second show cause notice which should be taken as the proper show cause notice for the purpose of these proceedings. Since this second show cause notice was issued on 29-9-1980, and the demand for the period from November 1978 to May 1979, he pleaded, the demand was out of time bar. He cited in support of his plea case of Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay : 1984(15) ELT 417 (Tri.). He further pleaded that the assessment was sought to be changed and a demand in pursuance, of a Tariff Advice should not have retrospective effect. In the end, he reiterated his plea that PVC masterbatches are only PVC compounds and are marketed so and are not known and marketed as pigments.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 26 May, 1984

13. Shri Tayal also brought to our notice certain decisions to the contrary. One was that of the Tribunal in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs, Madras, reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 417, where a three-Member Bench of the Tribunal had unanimously held that the grant of refund was governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act which provided a limitation period ; and that the applicants could not claim a higher refund before the Tribunal as compared to what they claimed before the Assistant Collector.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Gujarat State Cooperative Cotton ... vs Collector Of Customs on 14 January, 1987

In Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1984(17) ELT 180, a Bench of this Tribunal dealt with a similar question but concerning an adhoc order exempting goods (which had already been imported and cleared on payment of duty) from duty. The Bench held that the importer was entitled to refund of the duty paid in terms of the ad hoc order.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 6 February, 1985

2. Shri A.K. Jain, the learned SDR submitted that an appeal involving identical issue of the same appellants had been decided against them vide 1983 ELT 361 (CEGAT) (Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs, Madras). He further submitted that this judgment of the Tribunal had not been brought to the notice of the Bench when the appeal No. 1399-1410/80-A were argued. He submitted that had this been done, the Bench could have perhaps taken a different view. His first prayer was that since two contrary judgments had been pronounced by the Tribunal from the same Bench, a Larger Bench should be constituted to decide the issue. Thereafter, Shri Jain pointed out certain discrepancies in the bill of entry pertaining to the present appeal to show that the importation in question was not covered by one of the contracts figuring in the letter dated 21-12-1979 from MMTC. Shri Jain's alternative prayer, therefore, was that irrespective of the earlier orders referred to by the learned consultant, the present appeal deserves to be rejected on its own facts.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dalal Consultant And Engineers Pvt. ... vs Collector Of Customs on 30 November, 1988

3. So far as the point of law involved in this issue is concerned, the position is well settled as a result of the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Dr. Hari Vishnu Pophale v. Union of India - ILR (1981) No. 1 DEL 514, Madras High Court decision in the case of Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company Ltd. and ITC Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Ors. - 1984 (16) ELT 234 and the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Collector Customs, Bombay - 1985 (21) ELT 128 and in the case of Hindustan Copper Limited, Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1987 (31) ELT 809. In the light of these case law, it is well accepted that Section 25 (2) of the Customs Act does not impose any restriction on the Central Government as to the time when it should grant the exemption. Even in cases when Customs duty had been collected, it is open to the Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) ibid, to grant exemption and refund the duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1