Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.30 seconds)
M/S Lulu International Shopping Malls ... vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 2 June, 2025
cites
Section 138C in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Ferodo Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 April, 1987
14. Turning to the issue of entitlement to benefit of preferential rate
notified for imports from ASEAN countries, it was contended that
denial was grounded on every projection other than that which should
have, viz., descriptions below headings pertaining to the proposed tariff
line which should conform both to the General Rules for Interpretation
of the Tariff as enacted and in the manner laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise
[1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC)] and in HPL Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner
of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2006 (197) ELT 324 (SC)] as judicially
enunciated, and which may not be substituted by inadmissible and
peripheral evidence usually brought forth to allege ineligibility for
entitlement on the ground of unproven origin or doubtful authenticity
C/20383/2024
15
of proof of origin. He pointed out that discharge of onus would require
the adjudicating authority to overcome the assessment of like goods at
Nhava Sheva, Chennai and Delhi and that, from the examples of
specific sport in the rival clusters, it could only be inferred that sub-
heading 9506 99 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is
intended for accessories essential for participant in sport which neither
of the impugned goods are. He further pointed out that, even if such
comparison was resorted to, the distinguishment of their preferred
classification as requirement for the activity itself is discernible.
Moreover, he argued that the goods are not excluded from the ambit of
the notification and any attempt to read in an exclusion is not to be
based on flimsy evidence in the face of certainty warranted by General
Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act,
1975.
Hpl Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 June, 2003
14. Turning to the issue of entitlement to benefit of preferential rate
notified for imports from ASEAN countries, it was contended that
denial was grounded on every projection other than that which should
have, viz., descriptions below headings pertaining to the proposed tariff
line which should conform both to the General Rules for Interpretation
of the Tariff as enacted and in the manner laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise
[1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC)] and in HPL Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner
of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2006 (197) ELT 324 (SC)] as judicially
enunciated, and which may not be substituted by inadmissible and
peripheral evidence usually brought forth to allege ineligibility for
entitlement on the ground of unproven origin or doubtful authenticity
C/20383/2024
15
of proof of origin. He pointed out that discharge of onus would require
the adjudicating authority to overcome the assessment of like goods at
Nhava Sheva, Chennai and Delhi and that, from the examples of
specific sport in the rival clusters, it could only be inferred that sub-
heading 9506 99 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is
intended for accessories essential for participant in sport which neither
of the impugned goods are. He further pointed out that, even if such
comparison was resorted to, the distinguishment of their preferred
classification as requirement for the activity itself is discernible.
Moreover, he argued that the goods are not excluded from the ambit of
the notification and any attempt to read in an exclusion is not to be
based on flimsy evidence in the face of certainty warranted by General
Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act,
1975.