Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 87 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... vs M/S. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre on 2 August, 2001

Regional Institute Of Opthalmology And ... vs Cc on 7 April, 2006

(ii) C.C. (Imports), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre for the proposition that the order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to confiscation and consequential orders thereon, on the ground as in this case that the importer had violated the condition of notification subject to which exemption of goods was granted, without attracting the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.V. Marketing And Supplies vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import) on 8 October, 2004

The facts in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre and relied upon by the Revenue, are distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as in that case, the question of re-export was not involved. That was a case where hospital equipment was imported and the department found that the hospital has violated the conditions stipulated in the Notification regarding duty free import. Likewise, the facts in the case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc., 2001 (135) ELT 625, are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in that case, the allegation was that import of the Rig into a designated platform PE on 13.1.1998, without filing a Bill of Entry, constituted contravention of the provisions of Sections 30,32,34,46 and 47 of the Customs Act. In the said case, there was no request for re-export of the goods. In the case of Hemant Bhai R. Patel, 2003 (153) ELT 226 (Tri-LB), the question posed before the Tribunal was whether redemption fine and penalty can be imposed when re-export is allowed and the reference was answered by the Larger Bench that it is open to the adjudicating authority to impose redemption fine as well as penalty even when permission was granted for re-export.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Tanya Diagnostic Centre vs Commissioner Of Cus. (Port) on 19 July, 2002

In Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre case, the Honl)le Supreme Court no doubt has considered the contravention of the condition specified in a notification issued under the Customs Act. But the fact remains that these conditions were contravened after the importation of the goods and not before the importation of the goods. It is thus legally settled by the Highest Court that the Customs Authorities can legally hold goods liable for confiscation even after the goods have been imported and put to use. The ratio of the decision in the case of Vinod Gupta, relied upon by the Id. Advocate, is not applicable to the facts of the present matter as the facts are entirely different in both the cases.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... vs Hoganas India Ltd. And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 21 July, 2005

In the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre - 2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) of the Act would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to the confiscation and consequential orders thereon on the ground as in that case that the importer had violated the conditions of notification subject to which exemption of goods was granted, without attracting the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the learned Counsel Mr. Harishankar contends that all cases of confiscation are relatable to Section 124 and not to Section 28, and it is very important to note that there is an option of redemption by paying the redemption fine under Section 125 of the said Act. In that context, he referred to Section 127H of the said Act which clearly impowers the Settlement Commission to interfere with the redemption fine imposed. Cases of confiscation, are, therefore, statutorily brought within the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission. It is the contention of Mr. Harishankar that if one were to analyse the jurisdiction of Settlement Commission and were to restrict it to show cause notice under Section 28 then there is no need for providing Section 127H whereby the Commission can even interfere with regard to redemption fine which can be imposed under Section 125. Therefore it is the contention of Mr. Harishankar that the very provision of Section 127H makes it clear that even the cases of confiscation would come within the perview of Settlement Commission, therefore, logically even the notice issued under Section 124 will have to be covered since the notice under Section 124 of the Act is for the purpose of confiscation.
Bombay High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 21 July, 2005

24. The learned Counsel Mr. Harishankar who is appearing for the private parties in four of the Writ Petitions, sought to contend that the Revenue's stand that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction is excluded if show cause notice is issued under Section 124 of the Act, cannot be sustained. He strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre wherein the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) of the Act would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to the confiscation and consequential orders thereon on the ground as in that case that the importer had violated the conditions of notification subject to which exemption of goods was granted, without attracting the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the learned Counsel Mr. Harishankar contends that all cases of confiscation are relatable to Section 124 and not to Section 28, and it is very important to note that there is an option of redemption by paying the redemption fine under Section 125 of the said Act. In that context he referred to Section 127H of the said Act which clearly impowers the Settlement Commission to interfere with the redemption fine imposed. Cases of confiscation, are, therefore, statutorily brought within the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission. It is the contention of Mr. Harishankar that if one were to analyse the jurisdiction of Settlement Commission and were to restrict it to show cause notice under Section 28 then there is no need for providing Section 127H whereby the Commission can even interfere with regard to redemption fine which can be imposed under Section 125. Therefore it is the contention of Mr. Harishankar that the very provision of Section 127H makes it clear that even the cases of confiscation would come within the perview of Settlement Commission. Therefore, logically even the notice issued under Section 124 will have to be covered since the notice under Section 124 of the Act is for the purpose of confiscation.
Bombay High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 7 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

-Kolkata(Port) vs Limak-Soma Jv Hyderabad on 20 May, 2025

11. The fact that no bond/bank guarantee was obtained by the department from the respondent is a very material factual contention. We find that the revenue's reliance therefore on Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) and Commissioner of 8 Customs Appeal Nos.75600, 75601, 75602 & 75667 of 2021 Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre (supra) would not arise for once. There are a plethora of orders of various judicial bodies to hold that when the goods are not available for confiscation, they cannot be directed to be confiscated.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

-Kolkata(Port) vs Cschk-Soma Jv Hyderabad on 20 May, 2025

11. The fact that no bond/bank guarantee was obtained by the department from the respondent is a very material factual contention. We find that the revenue's reliance therefore on Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) and Commissioner of 8 Customs Appeal Nos.75600, 75601, 75602 & 75667 of 2021 Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre (supra) would not arise for once. There are a plethora of orders of various judicial bodies to hold that when the goods are not available for confiscation, they cannot be directed to be confiscated.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

-Kolkata(Port) vs Soma Enterprise Limited Hyderabad on 20 May, 2025

11. The fact that no bond/bank guarantee was obtained by the department from the respondent is a very material factual contention. We find that the revenue's reliance therefore on Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) and Commissioner of 8 Customs Appeal Nos.75600, 75601, 75602 & 75667 of 2021 Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre (supra) would not arise for once. There are a plethora of orders of various judicial bodies to hold that when the goods are not available for confiscation, they cannot be directed to be confiscated.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

-Kolkata(Port) vs Cggc-Soma Jv on 20 May, 2025

11. The fact that no bond/bank guarantee was obtained by the department from the respondent is a very material factual contention. We find that the revenue's reliance therefore on Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) and Commissioner of 8 Customs Appeal Nos.75600, 75601, 75602 & 75667 of 2021 Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre (supra) would not arise for once. There are a plethora of orders of various judicial bodies to hold that when the goods are not available for confiscation, they cannot be directed to be confiscated.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next