Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Dic India Ltd vs Kolkata(Port) on 28 August, 2024 cites

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cus. on 6 November, 2000

In this case, from the flowchart extracted hereinabove, we observe that the goods imported by the Appellant is extracted from crude. Thus, we find that the product viz. SCRIPTANE is appropriately classifiable under CTH 2709. We observe that the adjudicating authority has considered the classification of the impugned goods under CTH 2710, as the supplier of the goods classified the goods under CTH 2710. The adjudicating authority also relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner to classify the goods under the CTH 2710. In this regard, we observe that it is the settled position of law that the Chemical Examiner can only give an opinion about the nature of the goods and not the classification of the goods. Similarly, value of the goods, if any, mentioned by the Chemical Examiner should be corroborated by other evidences such as market enquiry. Reliance in this Page 8 of 9 Appeal No.: C/75652/2015-DB regard is placed on the decision in the case of Essar Oil Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive), Jamnagar [2015 (326) E.L.T. 310 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]. We observe that the classification of the imported goods is to be done as per the Tariff Entries, Section Notes and Chapter Notes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Classification of the goods mentioned by the supplier in the Invoice is not relevant for determining the classification of the goods imported into the country. In this case, since the goods imported are extracted from Crude, it appropriately fit into the description of the Tariff Entry 2709. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned goods imported by the Appellant vide the two Bills of Entry as mentioned in paragraph 2.1 supra, are appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 2709 and they are eligible for the benefit of exemption as per Sl. No. 487 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. Anand Nishikawa Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,Meerut on 23 September, 2005

In this regard, the Appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut [2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.)] 5.1. In respect of the 17 Bills of Entry which were assessed finally, the Appellant also submits that when the authorities were already aware of the alleged discrepancy, the Show Cause Notice invoking the extended period of limitation is not permissible. In this Page 4 of 9 Appeal No.: C/75652/2015-DB regard, the Appellant has relied upon the following decisions: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 70 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1