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>Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on CTV Imports</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Versus Sony India Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Versus Sony India Ltd. - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 385 (SC), 2008 (13) SCC 145 Issues Involved:1. Application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation under the First Schedule of Import Tariff.2. Classification of imported goods as components or complete Colour Television (CTV) sets.3. Alleged evasion of customs duty and violation of Exim Policy.4. Penalty and confiscation under Sections 112(a), 114(a), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Relevance of previous judgments, particularly Phoenix International Ltd. case.Detailed Analysis:1. Application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation:The primary issue was whether Rule 2(a) could be applied to classify the imported components as complete CTV sets. Rule 2(a) states that any reference to an article includes incomplete or unfinished articles if they have the essential character of the complete or finished article. The Tribunal concluded that the components imported could not be treated as complete CTV sets, as they did not possess the essential character of finished CTVs. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, emphasizing that Rule 2(a) could not be applied unless the imported articles, as presented, had the essential character of the complete or finished article. The Court noted that the components in question required a complicated manufacturing process before they could be used to assemble CTVs, thus failing to meet the criteria set by Rule 2(a).2. Classification of Imported Goods:The Commissioner of Customs had classified the imported components as complete CTV sets, leading to a higher duty imposition. However, the Tribunal and subsequently the Supreme Court found that the components imported over 22 months in 94 consignments could not be classified as complete CTV sets. The Court highlighted that the components were independently usable and marketable, which was a significant differentiating factor from the Phoenix International Ltd. case, where the parts imported were not independently usable.3. Alleged Evasion of Customs Duty and Violation of Exim Policy:The Revenue alleged that the respondent misdeclared CKD kits as components to evade higher customs duty and violated the Exim Policy by importing CKD kits without a license. The Tribunal found no evidence of fraud or subterfuge, unlike in the Phoenix International Ltd. case. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the components were imported under valid licenses and that the imports were in compliance with the Exim Policy before the application of Rule 2(a). The Court also noted that the goods were not listed in the negative list but in the restricted list, further differentiating this case from Phoenix International Ltd.4. Penalty and Confiscation:The Commissioner had imposed penalties and ordered confiscation under Sections 112(a), 114(a), and 111(m) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside these orders, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision. The Court found that the imposition of penalties and confiscation was unsustainable as the components could not be classified as complete CTV sets under Rule 2(a). The Court also emphasized that there was no evidence of fraudulent intent or misdeclaration by the respondent.5. Relevance of Previous Judgments:The Revenue heavily relied on the Phoenix International Ltd. case to support their position. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Phoenix International Ltd., noting significant factual differences. In Phoenix International Ltd., there was clear evidence of fraud and subterfuge, and the parts imported were not independently usable. In contrast, the present case lacked any allegations of fraud, and the components were independently usable and marketable. The Court concluded that the principles from Phoenix International Ltd. were not applicable to the present case due to these differences.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that the imported components could not be classified as complete CTV sets under Rule 2(a) and that the penalties and confiscation orders were unsustainable. The Court emphasized the importance of assessing imported goods based on their presentation and independent usability, differentiating the case from Phoenix International Ltd. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found