Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)
R.P. Industries vs Collector Of Customs on 28 September, 1995 cites

Singh Radio And Electronics vs Collector Of Customs on 20 May, 1988

6. All the appellants have challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector (P), Ahmedabad to issue the show cause notice and adjudicate upon, on the ground that the subject goods have been imported and cleared from the Customs at Bombay and it could be only the Collector of Customs at Bombay who is competent to initiate the proceedings and adjudicate upon the validity of the said import. Reference is made to the decision from the Tribunal in Singh Radio and Electronics v. Collector - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 713 (Tribunal) and Metro Exports v. Collector - 1988 (14) ECR 169 (CEGAT) and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Devilog Systems India v. Collector -1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.) challenging the approach of the Adjudicating Authority and his reference to the Govt. Notification M.E (D.R.) No. 87/84-Cus., dated 23-3-1984 it is contended that under the said notification, Collector (Preventive) Gujarat is appointed only is Collector (Preventive) Bombay and could, thus, exercise only the preventive jurisdiction, and vide M.E (D.R.) Notification No. 251/83-Cus., dated 27-8-1983, it is only the Collector of Customs, and not the Collector of Customs (Preventive) who is competent to adjudicate in relation to the imports caused at Bombay.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Devilog Systems India vs Collector Of Customs, Bangalore on 29 June, 1994

6. All the appellants have challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector (P), Ahmedabad to issue the show cause notice and adjudicate upon, on the ground that the subject goods have been imported and cleared from the Customs at Bombay and it could be only the Collector of Customs at Bombay who is competent to initiate the proceedings and adjudicate upon the validity of the said import. Reference is made to the decision from the Tribunal in Singh Radio and Electronics v. Collector - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 713 (Tribunal) and Metro Exports v. Collector - 1988 (14) ECR 169 (CEGAT) and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Devilog Systems India v. Collector -1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.) challenging the approach of the Adjudicating Authority and his reference to the Govt. Notification M.E (D.R.) No. 87/84-Cus., dated 23-3-1984 it is contended that under the said notification, Collector (Preventive) Gujarat is appointed only is Collector (Preventive) Bombay and could, thus, exercise only the preventive jurisdiction, and vide M.E (D.R.) Notification No. 251/83-Cus., dated 27-8-1983, it is only the Collector of Customs, and not the Collector of Customs (Preventive) who is competent to adjudicate in relation to the imports caused at Bombay.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 March, 1990

8. On the merits of the allegations as to unauthorised import of complete machines, Mr. Willingdon Christian, the Id. Advocate for M/s. R.P. Industries has submitted that the documentary evidence alongwith certain undisputed factual position alone are sufficient to negative allegations. He has pleaded that the appellants have held valid licences for import of components, and that the invoices for the items imported bear the specific names and descriptions of each such item and that the invoices were duly attached to five Bills of Entry filed, and the clearances have been given by the Bombay Customs without any objection as to misdeclaration or as to unauthorised import of complete machines. He has submitted that M/s. R.P. Industries have also purchased some of the components for these machines from the local market and the transport documents show receipts of items at their factory. Referring to the invoices from Lunia Exports (P) Ltd. and SMG Associates (P) Ltd. as also the transport Receipts from the Transporters, he has submitted that these documents have been seized from their office, at the time of initial search and have been referred to even in the show cause notice, which rules out the probability of their subsequent fabrication. The Id. Advocate has then referred to the judgment from the Supreme Court in Dynamatic Hydralics Ltd. v. Collector, 1992 (37) ECC 10 (SC) and of the Calcutta High Court in HCL Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 (40) ECC 257 (Cal.) to plead, that the Customs Authority have to merely examine whether the items imported are as per licence, and could not go beyond that and allege that import is of complete machine.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Hcl Limited (Reprographics Division) ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 January, 1991

8. On the merits of the allegations as to unauthorised import of complete machines, Mr. Willingdon Christian, the Id. Advocate for M/s. R.P. Industries has submitted that the documentary evidence alongwith certain undisputed factual position alone are sufficient to negative allegations. He has pleaded that the appellants have held valid licences for import of components, and that the invoices for the items imported bear the specific names and descriptions of each such item and that the invoices were duly attached to five Bills of Entry filed, and the clearances have been given by the Bombay Customs without any objection as to misdeclaration or as to unauthorised import of complete machines. He has submitted that M/s. R.P. Industries have also purchased some of the components for these machines from the local market and the transport documents show receipts of items at their factory. Referring to the invoices from Lunia Exports (P) Ltd. and SMG Associates (P) Ltd. as also the transport Receipts from the Transporters, he has submitted that these documents have been seized from their office, at the time of initial search and have been referred to even in the show cause notice, which rules out the probability of their subsequent fabrication. The Id. Advocate has then referred to the judgment from the Supreme Court in Dynamatic Hydralics Ltd. v. Collector, 1992 (37) ECC 10 (SC) and of the Calcutta High Court in HCL Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 (40) ECC 257 (Cal.) to plead, that the Customs Authority have to merely examine whether the items imported are as per licence, and could not go beyond that and allege that import is of complete machine.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd.. ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bangalore on 24 August, 1990

Distinguishing the Supreme Court judgment in Sharp Business Machines v. Collector 1990 (49) E.L.T 640 (SC) relied upon by the authority below, it is pleaded that the licence in the said case permitted import of only 62% of the components and import of 100% components was beyond the scope of the licence. In his submission irrespective of the same, here some positive evidence is adduced to show the purchase of some of the components from the local market. He has also submitted that there could be no violation of the policy provisions, merely because, some of the assembly work have been carried out at the site of their respective customers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 44 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1