Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Appellants penalized for misdeclaration of export goods under Customs Act.</h1> <h3>CANNON STEELS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN</h3> CANNON STEELS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Misdeclaration of the composition of export goods.2. Determination of FOB values and PMVs.3. Entitlement to DEPB credits.4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Misdeclaration of the Composition of Export Goods:The appellants were found to have misdeclared the composition of goods in Shipping Bills (S/B) Nos. 1000 and 2106. The chemical test report from the Custom House Laboratory showed discrepancies between the declared and actual compositions. For S/B No. 1000, the declared composition was wool 12%, acrylic fibre 9.7%, polyester fibre 57.7%, and other fibres 20.6%, while the test report showed acrylic fibre 89.5% and cellulosic fibre 10.5%. For S/B No. 2106, the declared composition was synthetic fibre 69.4 - 70.5%, but the test report indicated 55% synthetic fibre and 45% animal hair (wool). The Commissioner relied on these test reports to determine the DEPB credits and found that the appellants had misdeclared the composition to claim higher DEPB credits.2. Determination of FOB Values and PMVs:The Commissioner fixed lower FOB values and PMVs than those declared by the appellants based on market enquiries conducted at Ludhiana. The declared and determined values were as follows:- For S/B No. 1000: Declared FOB value Rs. 677/-, PMV Rs. 375/-; Determined FOB value Rs. 236/-, PMV Rs. 225/-.- For S/B No. 2088: Declared FOB value Rs. 1252/-, PMV Rs. 1200/-; Determined FOB value Rs. 709/-, PMV Rs. 675/-.- For S/B No. 2106: Declared FOB value Rs. 1252/-, PMV Rs. 1250/-; Determined FOB value Rs. 788/-, PMV Rs. 750/-.The appellants contested the market enquiry results, arguing that the purchase invoices should have been considered as per CBEC Circular No. 69/97. The Tribunal found the market enquiry results unreliable due to subsequent clarifications from the Bajwa Nagar Hosiery Association and the lack of evidence that M/s. Chawla Knitwears had dealt in similar goods. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the appellants' own case, accepting the purchase invoices as reliable evidence for determining PMVs.3. Entitlement to DEPB Credits:The DEPB credits were determined based on the chemical test reports and the declared FOB values. The Commissioner allowed DEPB credits at the rates of 15%, 16%, and 13% for the goods covered under S/B Nos. 1000, 2088, and 2106, respectively. The Tribunal upheld these rates but ordered that the credits be calculated based on the declared FOB values and PMVs, subject to the limits prescribed in CBEC Circular No. 69/97.4. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:The Commissioner found the goods covered under S/B Nos. 1000 and 2106 liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act due to misdeclaration of composition. As the goods were no longer available for confiscation, a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld this penalty, finding it reasonable given the circumstances.Conclusion:(a) The appellants are entitled to DEPB credits based on the declared FOB values and PMVs, subject to the limits prescribed in CBEC Circular No. 69/97. The credits are to be calculated at the rates of 15%, 16%, and 13% for the goods covered under S/B Nos. 1000, 2088, and 2106, respectively.(b) The penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act is upheld.(c) The impugned order is modified to the above extent, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found