Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
Niraj Petro Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 11 September, 2003 cites

Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... vs M/S. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre on 2 August, 2001

5. SDR submits that notwithstanding Section 28 has not been invoked by the Commissioner and the goods are liable for confiscation for non-fulfilment of the notification. She relies on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of CC (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre, 2001 (77) ECC 12(SC) : 2001 (132) ELT 257(SC) wherein the show cause notice for confiscation and for imposition of fine was upheld and it was held that demand of duty can be confirmed under Section 125 of the Customs Act when the goods have become confiscable for non-fulfilment of the terms of the notification and the party is required to pay duty while clearing the goods. She also refers to Section 125 of the Customs Act wherein goods can be confiscated for non-fulfilment of the export obligation and for recovery of duty thereon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 71 - B Kumar - Full Document
1