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>CESTAT Bangalore: Customs Duty Based on Quantity Received, Not Invoiced Quantity</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ruled in favor of M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., setting aside the demand of duty of Customs based on the quantity ... Levy of duty on goods actually imported - Import of Methanol - Department confirms the demand of duty of Customs based on the quantity of goods mentioned in invoice and the transaction value given irrespective of the quantity of the goods imported received at the Port - Held that: - the issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CCE [2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that the duty of customs is to be charged only on the quantity actually received into shore tank in Port in India; the quantity shown in the Bills of Lading cannot be used for charging duty as it does not reflect the quantity of the goods received at the place of importation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Demand of duty of Customs based on quantity mentioned in invoice vs. quantity received at the Port- Applicability of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CCE- Interpretation of Sections 12, 13, 14, 23 of the Customs Act- Validity of Tribunal's reasoning on duty calculation- Impact of ad valorem duty on quantity determination- Consideration of transaction value in duty calculationAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore pertains to an appeal by M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. against the demand of duty of Customs based on the quantity mentioned in the invoice, irrespective of the actual quantity of goods received at the Port. The appellant argued that duty should only be charged for the quantity received, as per shore tank receipts, rather than the quantity mentioned in the Bills of Lading/Invoices. The Tribunal considered the settled issue as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CCE, emphasizing that customs duty is to be charged only on the quantity actually received into the shore tank in India.The Tribunal highlighted the legal principles under the Customs Act, stating that the levy of import duty can only be on goods imported into India, i.e., brought into India from outside. The judgment emphasized that the taxable event for imported goods is the import itself, which occurs when goods cross into territorial waters and continue until they become part of the country's goods mass. The Tribunal criticized the Tribunal's reasoning for considering the bill of lading quantity for duty calculation, stating that it does not reflect the quantity at the time and place of importation.Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the misinterpretation of Sections 13 and 23 of the Customs Act by the Tribunal and clarified that customs duty is not leviable on goods that are lost, pilfered, or destroyed until they are out of customs and in the hands of the importer. The judgment also refuted the Tribunal's view on the impact of ad valorem duty on determining the quantity of goods imported and the relevance of transaction value in duty calculation. The Tribunal set aside the Tribunal's judgment and declared that the quantity actually received into a shore tank in an Indian port should be the basis for customs duty payment, aligning with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision.In conclusion, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant, directing the customs authorities to take consequential action in accordance with the declared law. The judgment reaffirmed the legal position that customs duty should be based on the actual quantity of goods received, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation and the statutory provisions of the Customs Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found