1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appellate Tribunal overturns Customs order due to jurisdiction issue</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, in 2008 (12) TMI 451, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, due to lack of ... Show cause notice - Jurisdiction - illicit import of photocopier sub-assemblies by CFI - floatation of dummy units The judgement by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, 2008 (12) TMI 451, involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, relating to the illicit import of photocopier sub-assemblies and evasion of customs duty. The Commissioner found that the forged allegations against Copier Force India Limited (CFI) were not proven and ordered the redemption of 27 photocopiers in SKD condition seized from M/s. Expeditors International, Chennai. The Commissioner demanded duty on the 27 photocopiers from CFI and imposed penalties on CFI, Kestrel, and their directors. The appeals challenged the demand of duty, fines, and penalties. During the hearing, the appellants argued that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Chennai, lacked jurisdiction, which rendered the order unsustainable. The Tribunal examined the jurisdiction of the ADG, DGCEI, Chennai, to issue the Show Cause Notice and found that the ADG did not have the territorial jurisdiction to issue the notice. As a result, the impugned order was set aside as ab initio bad in law. The Tribunal upheld the appellants' jurisdictional objection, ruled the impugned order as bad in law, set it aside, and allowed the appeals. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 8-12-2008.