Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)
Isha Exim Thr. Prabal Kumar Kundu vs Union Of India Thru The Secretary, Dept. ... on 18 December, 2023 cites

M/S. Srt Enterprises vs Cce, Ludhiana on 7 January, 2009

12. Even otherwise, the facts of S.T. Enterprises' case (supra) as stated in paras 2 and 3 of the said decision are also different and therefore even on facts same is distinguishable from the facts of the petitioner. In the case of S.T. Enterprises the revenue's case was that Areca nuts is a prohibited item for import as the CIF value of the goods was lesser than Rs.251/- per Kg. Furthermore, in the case of S.T. Enterprises, there was a finding that as per report, "process" stated by the importer have not been undertaken to make the betel nut "product of betel nut" to merit classification under CTH 2106 which is not the case in the impugned proceedings before us. The CESTAT, Chennai Bench in para 11 observed that based on chemical examiner's report the betel nuts were not subjected to any processes. However, on the contrary report in the case of the petitioner before us certifies that processes were carried out on betel nut and therefore even on this count decision in the case of S.T. Enterprises is not applicable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Ayush Business Overseas vs Commissioner Of Customs (Chennai Vii) on 19 March, 2021

14. It is also important to note that the decision of the AAR dated 31st March 2017 in the case of petitioner's own case has not been challenged by the respondents before the higher forum. The respondents did make an attempt for review of the said ruling by filing an application before the AAR which came to be dismissed on 30 th March 2022 wherein the respondents have once again raised an issue of classification. The said rejection by the AAR dated 30th March 2022 is also not challenged before the higher forum. It is also important to note that this rejection was on 30th March 2022 which is post the decision of the CESTAT ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2023 08:33:03 ::: ppn 11 44.wp-10512.23(j).doc Chennai Bench in case of S.T. Enterprises (supra) and also dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court in case of Ayush Business Overseas (supra), both being dated 26th February 2021 and 19th March 2021 respectively. Therefore, the respondents have accepted the ruling in the case of the petitioner dated 31st March 2017 now they cannot be heard to contend that the ruling is not binding.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1