Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 114A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 28AB in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S Signal Bearing Co vs Cce, Delhi -Iv on 1 June, 2011
In the case of Signal Bearing Co. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV (supra) it was held that guidelines for valuation of ball bearing issued by the mission of Customs Mumbai take into account average cost of material, wastage, manufacturing cost and other charges after extensive studies with cooperation/involvement of other digital authorities, prices observed in trade as well as other sources had legal bearing on assessment of ball bearings. The judgement of CESTAT in the case of Balaji International/Artex textiles (the appellant) No.C/A/52570 52612/2014 dated 19.06.2014 is of no avail because the judgement does not lay down any ratio at all and in the nature of summary observations/conclusions. It is settled law that what is binding is the ratio of a judgement we find that CESTAT vide Fnal Order No. C/A/57593-57594/2013 dated 25.07.2013 rejected Revenues appeal enhancing the value observing that the case was covered __________ a judgement number A/1382/1390/13/CSTB/C-I dated 27.06.2013. However, we find that CESTAT judgement dated 27.06.2013 proceeded on the facts that the adjudicating authority has assessed the value without assigning any reason and that there was no basis to form a view to reject the transaction value and the authority did not pass a speaking order. None of these inadequacies exist in the present appeal. In the present appeal, sufficient ground exists for rejecting the transaction value as discussed earlier, and a speaking order has been passed for enhancing the value. The primary adjudication order is not a detailed one because the appellant did not want to reply the Show Cause Notice or appeared for hearing and therefore there was no arguments to rebut from the appellants side.
Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
In the case of Dunlop India Ltd (supra) the issue was classification of goods and the Supreme Court essentially stated that even when the goods are cleared under the classification consented by the assessee, assessee was not debarred from seeking refund.
Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs Cc on 29 June, 1998
The appellant cited the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors (supra) and Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC)].
Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta vs South India Television (P) Ltd on 9 July, 2007
This judgement did not in any way mean that the refund shall be necessary granted only because assessee questioned the classification earlier agreed to buy it. in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. and South India Television (supra) the Supreme Court clearly held that valuation has to be determined in accordance with the customs valuation rules. This legal position is well settled. In the present the appellant voluntarily give up its right to have a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and therefore the primary adjudicating authority did not have any contentions/pleadings/arguments which it needed to counter. Even so the 1st appellate authority has dealt with the issue of rejection of transaction value is also the enhancement of value in fairytale when the show cause notices/hearing is expressly foregone, the appellants liberty to question the impugned order gets considerably restricted save when the impugned orders are absurd or arbitrary.