Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 16 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla vs M/S Essar Oil Limited & Ors on 7 October, 2004
5. Learned Authorised Representative contends that a clear
finding have been recorded in the impugned order to conclude that the
loading of exports could not have commenced till after imposition of
export duty and that the documentation had been tampered with to
wrongly claim that the statutory requirement of export had been
C/823-828/2012
4
complied with on 28th February 2007 itself. She also points out that, as
established in the impugned order, the proper officer could not have
carried out the examination as prescribed under section 51 of Customs
Act, 1962, on that date and, hence, in the absence of surveyor or
readiness of vessel, the 'let export order' lacked the validity. She
places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises [2001 (130) ELT 404
(SC)], Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd [2004
(172) ELT 433 (SC)] and Union of India v. Asian Food Industries
[2006 (204) ELT 8 (SC)].
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Asian Food Industries on 7 November, 2006
5. Learned Authorised Representative contends that a clear
finding have been recorded in the impugned order to conclude that the
loading of exports could not have commenced till after imposition of
export duty and that the documentation had been tampered with to
wrongly claim that the statutory requirement of export had been
C/823-828/2012
4
complied with on 28th February 2007 itself. She also points out that, as
established in the impugned order, the proper officer could not have
carried out the examination as prescribed under section 51 of Customs
Act, 1962, on that date and, hence, in the absence of surveyor or
readiness of vessel, the 'let export order' lacked the validity. She
places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises [2001 (130) ELT 404
(SC)], Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd [2004
(172) ELT 433 (SC)] and Union of India v. Asian Food Industries
[2006 (204) ELT 8 (SC)].
Section 15 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Principal Appraiser ... vs Esajee Tayabally Kapasi, Calicut on 11 October, 1995
4. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for appellants that
section 16 of Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that the rate of duty
applicable to any export goods is, in the case of goods entered for
export under section 50 of Customs Act, 1962, the date on which the
'proper officer' makes an order permitting clearance and loading of
the goods for exportation under section 51 of Customs Act, 1962.
According to him, the 'let export order' permitted by the proper
officer, viz., Superintendent, Minor Port dated 28th February 2007,
should put an end to the controversy. Drawing attention to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Principal Appraiser
(Exports) v. Esajee Tayabally Kapasi [1995 SCC (6) 536], it is
contended that there is no scope for deviation from the provisions of
section 16 of Customs Act, 1962.
Section 31 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Customs vs Candid Enterprises on 16 April, 1997
5. Learned Authorised Representative contends that a clear
finding have been recorded in the impugned order to conclude that the
loading of exports could not have commenced till after imposition of
export duty and that the documentation had been tampered with to
wrongly claim that the statutory requirement of export had been
C/823-828/2012
4
complied with on 28th February 2007 itself. She also points out that, as
established in the impugned order, the proper officer could not have
carried out the examination as prescribed under section 51 of Customs
Act, 1962, on that date and, hence, in the absence of surveyor or
readiness of vessel, the 'let export order' lacked the validity. She
places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises [2001 (130) ELT 404
(SC)], Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd [2004
(172) ELT 433 (SC)] and Union of India v. Asian Food Industries
[2006 (204) ELT 8 (SC)].