Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Cc vs Hindustan Motors Ltd. on 30 June, 2003

Kitex Garments Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) on 27 July, 2006

4. On a careful consideration, we notice that Note 2 to Chapter 49 has clearly indicated that the term "printing" includes embossing. The same meaning has been given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CC v. Maestro Motors Ltd. (supra) and the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of India Airlines (supra) would clearly apply to the facts of the case. The meaning given to the term can be read while interpreting the words in a Notification as held in the Apex Court ruling. Portion of Para 9 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Represented By Shri J.C.Patel, Adv., ... on 5 December, 2008

4. They further stated that the foreign supplier had loaded the cargo on the basis of theoretical weight only without actual weighment, therefore it can never be alleged on the basis of a discrepancy between such theoretical weight and the weight recorded at the SEZ and there was any short receipt; that it is also an accepted normal phenomenon as held in the decisions referred to above that, a minor discrepancy which was only to the extent of 2.45% is attributable to an error/valuation in weighing equipments and carrying out of weighment at two different places; that the Assistant Commissioner has not accepted the international norm of accepting tolerance of variation in the weight within certain limits; that the Purchase Order, Bill of Lading and Packing List themselves indicate that the weight mentioned therein is subject to variation between -3.5% to +5% and since the discrepancy in their case is of only 2.45%, the same is within the said tolerance limit; that the Bill of Lading/Packing List themselves indicate that the goods are supplied as per BS 4449 standards and as per these standards, the tolerance on mass per mature run for bars of diameter 8 and 10 mm is +6.5% and for diameter 12 above, it is +4.5%; that discrepancy of 2.45% is within the said tolerance limits of BS 4449 as per which the goods were sold; that the decision in the case of Savita Chemicals relied by the lower authority has no application to the facts of their case; that the demand raised in the present case was not tenable in view of the provisions of Rule 29(2)(f) and (g) of the SEZ Rules, 2006; that the Notice issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable inasmuch as the assessment of the goods made in the Bill of Entry granting exemption from duty had not been challenged by the department by filing an appeal against the assessment; that the Assistant Commissioner has not followed the decision in the case of CC Vs. Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. (2006 (202) ELT 693) and Wipro Ltd. Vs. CC (2005 (189) ELT 289) and the decisions relied by him in the case of Jhoonjhunwala Vanaspati and Sona Casting P. Ltd. are of no relevance with the facts of the present case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1