Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Court overturns CESTAT decision on imported photocopiers, ruling them freely importable</h1> The High Court overturned the CESTAT's decision and restored the Appellate Commissioner's ruling that the imported used photocopiers were freely ... Review of order - import of used photocopiers - restricted item - case of Revenue is that proper remedy for the assessee is to carry the matter to the Supreme Court and that this review is nothing but a further appeal in disguise. Held that:- There can be no dispute with the settled legal principle that a review petition cannot be permitted to masquerade as an appeal in disguise. In the normal circumstances, a judgment pronounced by the Court should be treated as final and departure from this norm would be justified only when grounds for review, in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, are specifically made out. There was a manifest error in the order dismissing the appeal, as the issue raised therein was not even considered by this Court and the mistake committed by the CESTAT was just carried forward while dismissing the appeal - review petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the used photocopiers were freely importable or classified as restricted goods.2. Legality of the revaluation of the imported goods.3. Validity of the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the used photocopiers were freely importable or classified as restricted goods:The primary issue was whether the used photocopiers imported by the assessee were freely importable or classified as restricted goods requiring a specific license. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise initially held that the goods were restricted and liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the lack of a license. However, the Appellate Commissioner, referencing the CESTAT’s judgment in M/s. S & S International, concluded that the goods were freely importable and set aside the confiscation and penalty.2. Legality of the revaluation of the imported goods:The Commissioner re-determined the value of the imported photocopiers at Rs. 10,64,400/- from the declared value of Rs. 7,03,122/-, citing undervaluation by the assessee. The Appellate Commissioner confirmed this enhanced valuation. The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner’s revaluation, dismissing the assessee’s appeal on this ground, and the High Court did not find sufficient reason to interfere with this valuation.3. Validity of the imposition of redemption fine and penalty:The Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively. The Appellate Commissioner set aside these penalties, citing that the goods were freely importable. However, the CESTAT, relying on its earlier judgment in Rex Printing Press, reinstated the penalties, fixing the redemption fine at 10% and the penalty at 5% of the value of the imported goods. The High Court initially dismissed the appeal, treating the issue as one of quantum rather than legality.Review Petition:The assessee filed a review petition asserting an error apparent on the face of the record, arguing that the core issue of whether the goods were freely importable was overlooked. The High Court acknowledged this oversight, noting that the CESTAT and the Court had not considered whether the goods were freely importable, thus erroneously upholding the penalties.Final Judgment:Upon review, the High Court found a manifest error in its earlier dismissal of the appeal. The Larger Bench of the CESTAT in Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. had held that used photocopiers were freely importable, contradicting the Commissioner’s original stance. Consequently, the foundation for the redemption fine and penalty was erroneous. The High Court set aside the CESTAT’s order, restoring the Appellate Commissioner’s decision that the goods were freely importable and not liable for confiscation or penalties. The review petition was granted, and the appeal was allowed, resulting in no costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found