Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Repro India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs(Import), ... on 17 June, 2016

Pravin A. Ranka vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 10 February, 2020

9. Moreover, we find that the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the printouts taken from the Laptop of Shri Jhingon on the point that mandatory provisions and conditions of Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. We find that the Panchnama dated 25/04/2006 simply mentions that the DRI officers also searched one Laptop of Shri Tarun Jhingon and one CPU for further investigation. Details of seized documents and laptop and CPU were given in the Annexure to Panchnama. It is evident from the Panchnama that the seizure of the Laptop was not in 15 Appeal Nos. C/86782,86783,86784,86785,86846,86889,87311/2013 terms of Section 138C ibid. Moreover, we find that such evidence was declared to be not admissible by this very Bench in the case of Tele brands India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra), holding as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ehsan A. Gadawala vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 10 February, 2020

9. Moreover, we find that the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the printouts taken from the Laptop of Shri Jhingon on the point that mandatory provisions and conditions of Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. We find that the Panchnama dated 25/04/2006 simply mentions that the DRI officers also searched one Laptop of Shri Tarun Jhingon and one CPU for further investigation. Details of seized documents and laptop and CPU were given in the Annexure to Panchnama. It is evident from the Panchnama that the seizure of the Laptop was not in 15 Appeal Nos. C/86782,86783,86784,86785,86846,86889,87311/2013 terms of Section 138C ibid. Moreover, we find that such evidence was declared to be not admissible by this very Bench in the case of Tele brands India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra), holding as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunland Alloys vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 10 February, 2020

9. Moreover, we find that the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the printouts taken from the Laptop of Shri Jhingon on the point that mandatory provisions and conditions of Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. We find that the Panchnama dated 25/04/2006 simply mentions that the DRI officers also searched one Laptop of Shri Tarun Jhingon and one CPU for further investigation. Details of seized documents and laptop and CPU were given in the Annexure to Panchnama. It is evident from the Panchnama that the seizure of the Laptop was not in 15 Appeal Nos. C/86782,86783,86784,86785,86846,86889,87311/2013 terms of Section 138C ibid. Moreover, we find that such evidence was declared to be not admissible by this very Bench in the case of Tele brands India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra), holding as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sushil Kumar Agarwal vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 10 February, 2020

9. Moreover, we find that the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the printouts taken from the Laptop of Shri Jhingon on the point that mandatory provisions and conditions of Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. We find that the Panchnama dated 25/04/2006 simply mentions that the DRI officers also searched one Laptop of Shri Tarun Jhingon and one CPU for further investigation. Details of seized documents and laptop and CPU were given in the Annexure to Panchnama. It is evident from the Panchnama that the seizure of the Laptop was not in 15 Appeal Nos. C/86782,86783,86784,86785,86846,86889,87311/2013 terms of Section 138C ibid. Moreover, we find that such evidence was declared to be not admissible by this very Bench in the case of Tele brands India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra), holding as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 10 February, 2020

9. Moreover, we find that the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the printouts taken from the Laptop of Shri Jhingon on the point that mandatory provisions and conditions of Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. We find that the Panchnama dated 25/04/2006 simply mentions that the DRI officers also searched one Laptop of Shri Tarun Jhingon and one CPU for further investigation. Details of seized documents and laptop and CPU were given in the Annexure to Panchnama. It is evident from the Panchnama that the seizure of the Laptop was not in 15 Appeal Nos. C/86782,86783,86784,86785,86846,86889,87311/2013 terms of Section 138C ibid. Moreover, we find that such evidence was declared to be not admissible by this very Bench in the case of Tele brands India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra), holding as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Tarun Jhingon vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 10 February, 2020

9. Moreover, we find that the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the printouts taken from the Laptop of Shri Jhingon on the point that mandatory provisions and conditions of Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. We find that the Panchnama dated 25/04/2006 simply mentions that the DRI officers also searched one Laptop of Shri Tarun Jhingon and one CPU for further investigation. Details of seized documents and laptop and CPU were given in the Annexure to Panchnama. It is evident from the Panchnama that the seizure of the Laptop was not in 15 Appeal Nos. C/86782,86783,86784,86785,86846,86889,87311/2013 terms of Section 138C ibid. Moreover, we find that such evidence was declared to be not admissible by this very Bench in the case of Tele brands India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra), holding as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mihir Bhatt vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 10 February, 2020

9. Moreover, we find that the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the printouts taken from the Laptop of Shri Jhingon on the point that mandatory provisions and conditions of Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. We find that the Panchnama dated 25/04/2006 simply mentions that the DRI officers also searched one Laptop of Shri Tarun Jhingon and one CPU for further investigation. Details of seized documents and laptop and CPU were given in the Annexure to Panchnama. It is evident from the Panchnama that the seizure of the Laptop was not in 15 Appeal Nos. C/86782,86783,86784,86785,86846,86889,87311/2013 terms of Section 138C ibid. Moreover, we find that such evidence was declared to be not admissible by this very Bench in the case of Tele brands India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra), holding as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1