Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)

Dic India Ltd vs Kolkata(Port) on 28 August, 2024

In this case, from the flowchart extracted hereinabove, we observe that the goods imported by the Appellant is extracted from crude. Thus, we find that the product viz. SCRIPTANE is appropriately classifiable under CTH 2709. We observe that the adjudicating authority has considered the classification of the impugned goods under CTH 2710, as the supplier of the goods classified the goods under CTH 2710. The adjudicating authority also relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner to classify the goods under the CTH 2710. In this regard, we observe that it is the settled position of law that the Chemical Examiner can only give an opinion about the nature of the goods and not the classification of the goods. Similarly, value of the goods, if any, mentioned by the Chemical Examiner should be corroborated by other evidences such as market enquiry. Reliance in this Page 8 of 9 Appeal No.: C/75652/2015-DB regard is placed on the decision in the case of Essar Oil Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive), Jamnagar [2015 (326) E.L.T. 310 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]. We observe that the classification of the imported goods is to be done as per the Tariff Entries, Section Notes and Chapter Notes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Classification of the goods mentioned by the supplier in the Invoice is not relevant for determining the classification of the goods imported into the country. In this case, since the goods imported are extracted from Crude, it appropriately fit into the description of the Tariff Entry 2709. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned goods imported by the Appellant vide the two Bills of Entry as mentioned in paragraph 2.1 supra, are appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 2709 and they are eligible for the benefit of exemption as per Sl. No. 487 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 30 June, 2011

15. As regards the demurrage charges, the ld.counsel has submitted that there is a binding decision of the Tribunals Larger Bench in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs Commissioner of Cus., Calcutta [ 2000 (122) E.L.T. 615( Tribunal  LB)] (para 15). The Larger Bench held that demurrage was an extraordinary expenditure which did not require to be added to the transaction value inasmuch as Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules did not contemplate inclusion of extraordinary expenses like demurrage in the assessable value of the goods.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd vs Ahmedabad on 23 July, 2024

High Court as affirmed by Supreme Court in 2023 (4) TMI 1272- SC Order  Kwality Paper Products vs. Commissioner of Customs- Mundra, 2023 (7) TMI 890-CESTAT Ahmedabad  Atul Limited vs. C.C.E. & S.T.- Surat-1, 2022 (7) TMI 987- CESTAT Ahmedabad  Bhavin Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., Mundra, 2021 (12) TMI 89- CESTAT Ahmedabad  Chief Terminal Manager M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., Tuticorin, 2023 (12) TMI 576- CESTAT Chennai  Summer India Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. of Cus., Tuticorin, 2022 (381) E.L.T. 101 (Tri. - Chennai)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1