TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Mumbai upholds duty demand for imported drawings under CTA, extended limitation period invoked.</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI upheld the duty demand of Rs. 2,16,892/- in a case concerning the classification of imported drawings under ... Drawings and designs imported by way of courier baggage Issues: Classification of imported drawings, extended period of limitation, duty demand, exclusion for courier baggage, penalty impositionThe judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI involved the classification of imported drawings and designs, the application of the extended period of limitation, duty demand, exclusion for courier baggage, and penalty imposition. The case revolved around the import of drawings by the appellants through courier baggage, leading to a Show Cause Notice seeking recovery of Customs Duty. The initial classification was under sub-heading No. 4911.99 of the CTA, which was later changed to sub-heading 9803.00 of the CTA through a corrigendum, resulting in an increased duty demand from Rs. 35,956/- to Rs. 2,16,892/-.In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal noted that the extended period of limitation was invoked in the initial Show Cause Notice, and the subsequent corrigendum did not put the appellants at a disadvantage within the extended period of 5 years. The importers had failed to declare the value of the goods at the time of import, and at that time, there was no exclusion for courier baggage until an amendment in 1995. Consequently, the impugned goods were rightly classified under Heading 98.03 by the Adjudicating Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand of Rs. 2,16,892/- based on the classification and cited a precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support their decision. It was also noted that no penalty was imposed by the adjudicating Commissioner, indicating a lenient view on that aspect.Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the duty demand as confirmed in the impugned order. The judgment was pronounced in court on 3-1-2006, bringing an end to the legal proceedings in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
