Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Cenlub Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi on 12 June, 2001

Akash International vs Commissioner Of Customs on 29 April, 2005

(b) The decision of this Tribunal in CENLUB INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, New Delhi reported in 2001 (132) ELT 206 was referred in order to point out the the Tribunal did not accept the plea that the value of the goods cannot be loaded in view of the fact that the loading was not contested by the appellants therein before the adjudicating authority.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Speco Industrial Corpn. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 22 July, 2003

3. Countering the argument Shri V. Valte, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that Shri J.S. Oberoi, Chartered Engineer, after examining the goods as imported by the appellants, has opined that "the material received is in the form of sheets - mixture of hot/cold re-rolled and of varying length, width and thickness, etc. The material is secondary/defective". He, further, mentioned that Shri J.S. Oberoi has clearly opined that "the sheets are neither fit for rolling nor for re-rolling nor for melting and are saleable as such."; that Shri Rajesh Shori, in his statement dated 14-2-02, has stated that sheet cut pieces can fetch higher price than the melting scrap and added that due to cost factor it is not viable to melt sheet cuttings/cut pieces; that Shri Neeraj Agarwal in his statement dated 14-2-02 has stated that he did not want to contest the original report of Shri J.S. Oberoi as he had given his report after complete examination of the goods; that Shri Neeraj Agarwal agreed that the goods under import were cut pieces of sheets, secondary/defective; that as such it has been admitted by the appellants that the goods imported by them were not melting scrap. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Cenlub Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.), wherein it has been held that once the charge was not contested before Adjudicating Authority, plea regarding same could not be raised before the Appellate Tribunal. Finally, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that as the goods have been misdeclared, the value shown in the invoice cannot be termed as corresponding to the goods and that accordingly the Commissioner was justified in enhancing the value.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1