Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.76 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Raj Exports vs National Aluminium Co. Ltd. on 1 March, 1996
The above principle laid down by the Honble High Court in Raj Exports case is applicable to this context as well. In any case, as we have already observed, the importer in the present case cannot claim the benefit of any Amnesty Scheme.
Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd., ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Central ... on 12 December, 1995
It is pointed out that, in the case of Bharat Pulvarising Mills case, the Orissa High Courts judgment was followed in preference to the Supreme Courts judgment in Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt Ltd vs Collector 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC). The learned Special Consultant has also distinguished the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires by submitting that, in that case, the benefit of exemption notification was allowed by the apex court to the assessee by holding that the relevant condition (which required the assessee not to avail MODVAT Credit on any input used in the manufacture of the exempted final product) stood complied with inasmuch as the credit so availed had been reversed prior to clearance of the exempted final product. It is submitted that this ruling cannot be applied to the present case. In this connection, the learned Special Consultant has also referred to Kamra Bottling Companies 2003 (160) ELT 487 (Tri-Del), wherein the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 was denied to the assessee after noting that the MODVAT Credit taken on inputs had been reversed only after clearance of the final product. The Tribunals decision was affirmed by the High Court in Kamra Bottling Co 2009 (233) ELT 329 (Raj). Thus, claiming support from case law, the learned Special Consultant has argued that any reversal of MODVAT credit subsequent to the export of the resultant product would not have the effect of erasing the breach of the relevant conditions of notifications No. 159/90-Cus and No. 204/92-Cus.
Bharti Telecom Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 7 November, 2001
(ii) The Amnesty Scheme was specific to Notification No. 203/92-Cus and the same cannot be applied to the present case involving other notifications. For this reason, the apex courts judgment in Bharti Telecom case is inapplicable.
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Essar Steels Limited, Shashi N. Ruia, ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 26 March, 2003
11. The learned counsel representing M/s Orbit International (C/1270/02) has also advanced similar arguments. By way of assistance to the Bench, the learned counsel has also referred to the Supreme Courts judgment in Jindal Dye Intermediate Ltd vs Collector 2006 (197) ELT 471 (SC) and the Tribunals judgment in M.K. Shah Exports Ltd vs Commissioner 1998 (104) ELT 696 (Tri-Mum). The point sought to be made by the learned counsel is that the material imported under an advance licence in the DEEC Scheme, with an obligation for discharge of export obligation, need not be identical with the input used in the exported final product. According to him, it is enough if the imported raw material is commercially usable in the export product.
Jayantilal Bhogilal, Usha ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 28 November, 2001
In the case of Usha Intercontinental (supra), merchant-exporters had imported certain raw materials under the DEEC Scheme claiming the benefit of Notification No. 159/90-Cus. Those goods were imported as replenishment for the use in exported product. It was found that the party had availed MODVAT credit on the input used in the production of the resultant product. Under para 250- (2) of the relevant Exim Policy, there was a bar against sale of the imported goods if MODVAT credit had been taken on the inputs used in the exported product. As the party had sold the raw material imported by them, the benefit of the above Notification was denied to them inasmuch as one of the conditions of the Notification barred availment of MODVAT credit on inputs used in the export product if the raw material imported by way of replenishment under the advance licence was to be disposed of by sale.
Metro Tyres Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 August, 1995
14. The case of the importer, as stated by their counsel, is that the notifications did not purport to insist that the raw material imported under an advance licence should be of the same specifications and material characteristics as those of the inputs actually used in the exported product. It is their contention that, if the raw material imported and the one used in the exported product are both covered by the advance licence, that would suffice the purpose. It was in this context that the learned counsel relied on the Tribunals decision in Metro Tyres case. We have already discussed the case of Metro Tyres, to some extent, in an earlier part of this order. In the present context, it would be enough to say that, in that case, what was imported for duty-free clearance under Notification No. 159/90-Cus was synthetic rubber and what was used in the manufacture of the exported product (resultant product) was also synthetic rubber. The only difference was that the imported synthetic rubber was of the type of Butyl rubber, whereas the input used in the resultant product was synthetic rubber of a different variety. The Tribunal, in that case, held in favour of the importer after observing thus Once the appellants contention that they had used synthetic rubber although not of the Butyl rubber variety in the manufacture of exported articles has not been contradicted or found to be wrong, the importation of synthetic rubber of Butyl variety could amount to a material which could be imported for purpose of replenishment in terms of the language of the Notification. It would thus appear that, in the case of Metro Tyres, the department had not found fault with the importer having used one variety of synthetic rubber in the resultant product and importing another variety of synthetic rubber for duty-free clearance under the notification. The facts of the present case are different. In the present case, it has been the consistent case of the Revenue that the benefit of Notification No. 159/90-Cus is not admissible to the importer who used Sorbitol in the manufacture of toothpaste and imported Glycerine as replenishment claiming duty-free clearance under the Notification and further that they used gum in the manufacture of the resultant product and imported Irish Moss/Viscarine as replenishment. It is not in dispute that Glycerine is different from Sorbitol in material characteristics including chemical composition, physical properties, uses etc. It is again not in dispute Irish Moss or Viscarine is not the same as gum. The only case of the importer is that all these items are covered by the advance licences and, therefore, one material should be allowed as replenishment for the other.