Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Patna on 24 August, 2016

Chennai (Port Export) vs Ace Designers Ltd on 6 August, 2018

This being so, the respondents cannot then get the rate of Customs duty which was actualized by Customs Notification No.64/2008-Cus. onlyon 9.5.2008. 5.8 In arriving at this conclusion, we also draw sustenance from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs CC Patna - 2016 (339) ELT 161 (SC), also been relied upon by the Ld.A.R, where the Apex Court has inter alia repelled the plea that amending notification was only clarificatory in nature and that its issue was a formal ministerial act which got delayed for administrative reasons. The relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced as under :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 May, 2017

13. Mr. Narula drew attention to the distinction between a notification WP (C) 3606/2003 Page 9 of 13 granting exemption and a notification that either imposed or increased rates of SAD in place of an earlier notification which levied nil or a lower rate of SAD. Mr. Narula explained the difference between the basic customs duty and the SAD and additional duty which was also evident from Sections 2,3 and 3 A of the CTA. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Patna 2016 (339) DLT 161 (SC).
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1