TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether customs duty, if any, arising out of the alleged incorrect extension of exemption under Notification No. 118/59-Cus. could be recovered from the respondent purchaser instead of the importer.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that Hindustan Shipyards Ltd. was the real importer of the vessels and that the respondent was only a purchaser. It held that, even assuming there had been a mistake in extending the exemption benefit, the department's remedy lay against the importer and not against the purchaser. On that basis, the Tribunal found no merit in the departmental challenge to the exemption claim.
Conclusion: The duty demand could not be fastened on the respondent purchaser, and the appeal failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
