Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)
Tibco Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Pune Iii on 19 February, 2019 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Jellalpore Tea Estate on 15 March, 2011

Similarly, in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jellalpore Tea Estate [2011 (268) E.L.T. 14 (Gau.)], the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati held that "what is required to be done in a manner prescribed by law, ought to be done in that manner only or not at all." Therefore, the appellant having failed to insure the goods for the Customs duty involved on the goods deposited in the warehouse, cannot seek benefit under Section 23 of the Customs Act. Therefore, demand of Customs duty on the imported raw materials which 15 C/14/2009 were destroyed in the fire as such or which were contained in the finished products destroyed is clearly sustainable in law and we hold accordingly. Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in case of Sandoz Pvt Ltd [2014 (308) ELT 617 (T-Mum)] 5.7 Further clear analysis of Section 23 will make it evident that the said section is applicable, only in case where order Section 47 for clearance of goods for home consumption or an order for deposit of the said goods in warehouse has not been made. Further remission is also not to be allowed in respect of the goods for which an offence under the customs Act, 1962 is committed. By not fulfilling the conditions of license issued under the Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 appellants have contravened the provisions to that extent and hence section 23 should not be applicable. 5.8 Appellants inn their appeal have relied upon certain decisions which are clearly distinguishable as they relate to destruction of goods prior to clearance from the port a\or prior to them being put to use. 5.9 Further appellants in their submission have relied upon following decisions in their support:
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 Next