Search Results for "customs tariff"

169 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 169 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Customs Classification Dispute. n-Hexane Held to be a Separate Chemical Compound, Not Petroleum Oil, Under Customs Tariff Heading 2901.10 and Central Excise Tariff Heading 2901.90.

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, against the decision of CESTAT, Ahmedabad, which had dismissed the Revenue's appea...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Airport Operator's Challenge to Customs Regulation Requiring Bill of Entry for Export Goods. Regulation 5(2) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 Held Intra Vires Customs Act, 1962 and Constitutional.

The petitioner, M/s. Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd., filed two writ petitions challenging the validity of Regulation 5(2) of the Handling o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of 100% EOU in Customs Duty Case for Unauthorized DTA Sales of Cut Flowers. Cut Flowers Held Non-Excisable, Duty Leviable on Inputs Under Notification No. 126/94-Cus as Amended, Extended Limitation Period Invoked for Wilful Suppression.

The appeal arises from a dispute between M/s. L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in floriculture, and the Commis...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Customs Duty Refund for Re-imported Goods Under Section 26(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 — Re-importation Within One Year of Export Qualifies for Refund Despite Procedural Lapses

The petitioner, Covestro India Private Limited, exported certain goods for exhibition purposes and subsequently re-imported them. The petitioner paid ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeals in Antidumping Duty Gap Period Case. Tribunal's Decision That No Antidumping Duty Can Be Levied During Period Between Expiry of Provisional Duty and Imposition of Final Duty Under Rule 21 of Customs Tariff (Antidumping) Rules, 1995 Upheld.

The Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, filed appeals against orders of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 1 Aug...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Court Rules in Favor of Importer in Crude Palm Oil Customs Duty Dispute. High Court Cites Supreme Court Precedent, Orders Refund of Additional Duties Paid Due to Reassessment Based on Newly Issued Tariff Notification

The petitioner imported 12,250 metric tons of Crude Palm Oil under four contracts with Just Oil & Grain Pte. Ltd., Singapore. After the goods arri...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Central Excise Case: Commissioner's Decision on Nil Duty Binding on Assessing Officer. Duty on DTA Clearances of Fresh Mushrooms by 100% EOU Held Nil Following Commissioner's Order Under Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant, ECO Valley Farms & Foods Limited, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in cultivation, manufacture, and export of fresh/processed ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Customs Appeal Without Pre-deposit in Classification Dispute — Tribunal's Discretion Must Be Exercised Consistently. Pre-deposit direction set aside as Tribunal failed to follow its own earlier order on identical issue under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant, Videocon Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of LCD TVs, had been regularly importing Liquid Crystal Device – Thin Film Transistor Module...