Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
S Krishna &Amp; Co vs Kolkata(Port) on 6 July, 2018 cites

Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta vs South India Television (P) Ltd on 9 July, 2007

In the present case, there is an information received from the overseas sources which are not tallying with respect to classification of the goods and even for the quantity of the goods imported by the appellant. This discrepancy was never investigated further and the same was made applicable to the present and past imported consignment which is contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. South India Television (P) Ltd. - 2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC) that :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Cc, Amritsar vs M/S. R.K. Machine Tools (P) Ltd. ... on 16 March, 2001

It is evident from the letter above that the Bill of Lading No. and invoice No. are same but the Customs Tariff Heading and the quantity is different. The Revenue has not taken any further clarification regarding the mismatch from the Indonesian authority, who have supplied the same and straightway applied the same with the consignment of imported goods. The adjudicating authority has not got this further clarified as to why there is a difference in 10 C/76631/14-DB classification as well as in the quantity of the consignment imported. Merely on this basis, the valuation for the imported carpet cannot be enhanced. The valuation of consignment is required to be done as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, read with the Customs Valuation Rules. Further, we have perused the decision in case of CC, Amritsar Vs. Kalsi Machinery Co. (P) Ltd. filed in the paper book in appeal copy which is relevant to the facts of the case and the operative portion of the order is as under:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next