Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Commissioner Of C. Ex., Madras vs Systems And Components Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 2004
4. According to Learned Authorized Representative, the declared
value is based on sale contract with related person and sought to be
sustained by report of overseas chartered engineer which has
estimated current value of scrap without taking into account the cost
of disassembling of the machinery. He further contends that the
reports indicate that the parts of the machinery are serviceable and can
hardly be 'scrap' as claimed by the appellant. He placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of
Central Excise, Madras v. System & Components Pvt Ltd [2004 (165)
ELT 136 (SC)] to submit that admitted facts do not have to be proved.
Section 17 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Prasant Glass Works P. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 14 August, 1996
C/903/2010
4
It was also argued by him that the contraventions came to light after
clearance and that, in such cases, as held by the Tribunal in Prasant
Glass Works P Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1996 (87) ELT
518 (Tribunal)], it was not necessary that accompanying documents
had to be accepted.
M/S. Sree Ayyanar Spinning Mills & vs Cce, Tuticorin on 21 January, 2015
3. Learned Counsel did not agree with the report of M/s Intertek,
the chartered engineer engaged by the customs authorities, as the
survey was conducted at the premises of the appellant and the
methodology adopted for valuation is absent and, even, was unclear
about the year of manufacture. Reliance was placed by him on the
decision of the Tribunal in Anish Kumar Spinning Mills v.
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2004 (172) ELT 394 (Tri-
Chennai)] upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gajra Bevel Gears v. Collector of Customs,
Bombay [2000 (115) ELT 612 (SC)].
The Commissioner Of Customs vs P.V.Ukkru International Trade on 11 February, 2008
Further reliance was placed on the decision of the
Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs v. PV Ukkru International
Trade [2009 (235) ELT 229 (Ker)] and in Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai v. Multimetal Ltd [2002 (144) ELT 574 (Tri-Mumbai].
Commissioner Of Customs vs Multimetal Limited on 5 May, 2000
Further reliance was placed on the decision of the
Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs v. PV Ukkru International
Trade [2009 (235) ELT 229 (Ker)] and in Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai v. Multimetal Ltd [2002 (144) ELT 574 (Tri-Mumbai].
Gajra Bevel Gears vs Collector Of Customs on 2 December, 1999
3. Learned Counsel did not agree with the report of M/s Intertek,
the chartered engineer engaged by the customs authorities, as the
survey was conducted at the premises of the appellant and the
methodology adopted for valuation is absent and, even, was unclear
about the year of manufacture. Reliance was placed by him on the
decision of the Tribunal in Anish Kumar Spinning Mills v.
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2004 (172) ELT 394 (Tri-
Chennai)] upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gajra Bevel Gears v. Collector of Customs,
Bombay [2000 (115) ELT 612 (SC)].
1