Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Cc vs Hindustan Motors Ltd. on 30 June, 2003 cites

Universal Commercial Corpn. vs Collector Of Customs on 9 July, 1993

4. She also mentioned that the imported goods have been identified as "CKD Packs of Licensed Engines" in the 'License And Technical Assistance Agreement (Engines & Transmission) between M/s. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation and M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. She finally submitted that Rule 2(a) clearly stipulates that even if 100% components are not imported they still are to be assessed to duty as complete article provided that they have essential character of the complete or finished article. She relied upon the decision in Universal Commercial Corpn. v. Collector of Customs, Delhi, 1994 (69) ELT 150 (T) wherein it has been held that "the word 'essential character' occurring in Rule 2(a) cannot be interpreted to mean 'functional character"; that in this case the Tribunal has held that the imported goods have the essential character of air-conditioning machine though they may be incomplete air-conditioning and other parts are also required to make it a functional airconditioner.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

M/S. Integra Hindustan Control Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 15 May, 2001

Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Hindustan Packaging Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara, 1995 (75) ELT 313 (T) wherein it has been held that the Rules of Interpretation can come into play and can be invoked if only the classification cannot be determined according to the terms of the heading and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes. He also referred to the following decisions:-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cus. & C. Ex., Indore on 25 March, 2003

In fact the Hon'ble High Court assumed for the legal purpose of disposal of the case "that substantially all the parts of the photo copiermachine were imported by the petitioner in a knocked down or disassembled condition." Regarding post importation operation, a Larger Bench of 5 Members of this Tribunal has held in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., supra, that the cost of post importation operation could not be decisive in directing the applicability of Rule 29a).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sony India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Icd, New Delhi on 28 May, 2002

In Sony India case, Learned SDR has pointed out that many components were subjected to working operation which is not so in respect of the present matters. Moreover explanatory Notes of HSN mention that for the purpose of Rule 2(a), "articles presented unassembled or disassembled" means articles the components of which are to be assembled either by means of fixing devices or by riveting or welding, for example, provided only assembly operations are involved. The Note further mentions that "no account is to be taken in that regard of the complexity of the assembly method." Accordingly we hold that Rule 29a) of the Interpretative rules is applicable in the present matters. Accordingly we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeals filed by the Revenue.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Hcl Limited (Reprographics Division) ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 January, 1991

The same applies to an incomplete machine having the features of the complete machine presented unassembled. Further Explanatory Notes of HSN below Chapter 89 mentions that "Complete vessel presented unassembled, and hulls, unfinished or incomplete vessels (whether assembled or not), are classifiable as vessels of a particular kind, if they have the essential character of that kind of vessel." The decision in Sony India Ltd. will not apply inasmuch there the revenue wanted to combine the 94 consignments under 94 different Bills of Entry spread over a period of time whereas in the present matter each bill of entry, as shown by the learned SDR, represents sets of engine. The decision in the case of HCL Ltd. v. UOI, 1992 (59) ELT 509 (CAL) is not applicable to the facts of the present matter as the issue before the Hon'ble High Court for decision was entirely different. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the importer can not be held to be guilty of breaking either Section 11(d) or 112 (a) of the Customs Act since the consignments were imported in accordance with the licence and since even after assembly the importer did not achieve something which the importer could not have legally achieved.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next