Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 11A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Customs vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. on 12 March, 2003
There is no rule that the benefit of exemption would be given to the goods only after all the components come in one consignment and not otherwise. Customs Authorities when they are blind to the practical realities of world and adopt a pedantic approach in interpreting laws, no longer act as facilitators of trade but remain as insurmountable obstacles to development. There is absolutely no merit in the Orders-in-Original. Moreover, in view of the Tribunal's decision in case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (supra), even if it is held that the items are not entitled for exemption, the demand is premature as the goods are warehoused and the demand can be made only after de-bonding. All the goods imported are covered by the exemption Notifications in view of the authorization given by STPI and also Development Commissioner in the case of the appellants. Once again we want to make it abundantly clear that Modular Furniture authorized by STPI or appropriate authority imported in different consignments would be entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 140/91-Cus., dated 22-10-1991. Hence all these 04 (four) appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
Jay Engg. Works Ltd. vs Cc And Ce on 29 September, 1999
(ii) Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CC - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 680.
The Customs Act, 1962
M/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996
(i) Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector -1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.).
The Paper Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 August, 1999
(ii) Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.).
1