Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (1.02 seconds)Section 46 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 114A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S. Priya Blue Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) on 17 September, 2004
69. It has been held by Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. C. C. Preventive (2004) 172 ELT 145 (SC) that where an order is appellable under the statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal, then the order is not liable to be questioned and the matter is not to be reopened in a proceeding for refund which if we may term it so is in the nature of execution of a decree/order. Therefore appellant has no ground to argue further that the vessel on re-import needs to be reclassified when no Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant on re-import of the vessels for there was escapement of levy.
Arcadia Shipping & Trading Company vs Commissioner Of Customs, Jamnagar on 15 September, 2017
52. The decision of the Tribunal in Arcadia Shipping Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2006 (201) ELT 139 (Tri. Mumbai) is applicable to the case of the appellant. A barge with diving equipment was subject matter of decision in that case. Para 4 of the said judgment is relevant to appreciate the case of the appellant. Appellants submission is that Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof to bring the vessel into CTH 8905. Mere navigability is not the criteria for disturbing the classification.