Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Collector Of Customs(Preventive), ... vs M/S. Essar Gujarat Ltd., Surat on 19 November, 1996
5. An appeal by the respondent to CEGAT succeeded, and
CEGAT by its judgment dated 24.6.2003 set aside the order
of the Commissioner holding that the plant could have
been set up and could run without the supply of technical
knowledge. Secondly, the fact that the technical supply
agreement was signed prior to the agreement for supply of
machinery would not be relevant. The judgment of this
Court in Collector of Customs (Preventive) v. Essar
Gujarat Ltd., (1997) 9 SCC 738, was distinguished on
facts in reaching the aforesaid conclusion.
Commissioner Of Customs (Port), ... vs M/S. J.K. Corporation Limited on 2 February, 2007
In Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. J.K.
20
Corporation Limited, (2007) 9 SCC 401, on facts the
agreement there was itself in two parts, part (a)
providing for licence, know-how and technology while part
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd on 21 February, 2008
16. Similarly, in Commissioner of Customs v. Ferodo
India (P) Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 563, this Court dealt with
Rule 9(1)(e) and the Essar Gujarat judgment as follows:
Commnr. Of Customs (Port), Chennai vs M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd on 17 May, 2007
"36. Therefore, law laid down in Essar Gujarat
Ltd. [(1997) 9 SCC 738] and J.K. Corpn.
Ltd. [(2007) 9 SCC 401 : (2007) 2 Scale 459] is
absolutely clear and explicit.