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.
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

        -

        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>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on imported goods classification dispute</h1> <h3>Pace India Versus C. C-Bangalore-Cus</h3> Pace India Versus C. C-Bangalore-Cus - 2020 (372) E.L.T. 442 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported goods as waste/scrap.2. Jurisdiction and legality of the re-export order.3. Applicability of Section 111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Requirement of prior permission under Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.5. Procedural lapses and burden of proof on the Department.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Goods as Waste/Scrap:The appellant imported small solar cells and declared them under CTH 85414011. However, the Customs authorities classified them as waste/scrap under CTH 38256900, based on the observation that the goods were broken pieces of solar cells. The Tribunal found that only 70 kgs out of 13,599.5 kgs were broken, which does not justify classifying the entire consignment as waste/scrap. The Tribunal noted that the appellant provided sufficient documentation, including purchase orders, bills of entry, and commercial invoices, indicating the goods were small solar cells. The report from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) confirmed that the cut pieces could be used for various solar applications, supporting the appellant's classification.2. Jurisdiction and Legality of the Re-export Order:The Tribunal held that the order for re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine was beyond the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 125 of the Customs Act does not confer the authority to impose conditions such as re-export upon redemption. The Tribunal cited the case of HBL Power Systems Ltd. Vs. CC, Visakhapatnam, where it was established that the adjudicating authority has no power to compel re-export as a condition for redemption. Thus, the re-export order was set aside.3. Applicability of Section 111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962:The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration or wrongful classification with the intent to evade customs duty. The Tribunal found that the appellant's declaration was based on the purchase order and supplier’s invoices. The reports from IISc, CPCB, and KSPCB did not indicate that the goods were hazardous waste. Therefore, the provisions of Section 111(d) & (m) were not applicable, and the confiscation and penalty were unjustified.4. Requirement of Prior Permission under Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016:The appellant contended that the imported small solar cells were not listed in any Schedule of the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, and thus did not require prior permission. The CPCB report supported this claim, stating that the imported goods did not appear in any Schedule of the Rules. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the KSPCB categorized the solar industry under the White category, which does not require environmental clearances.5. Procedural Lapses and Burden of Proof on the Department:The appellant argued that the burden of proof for classification lies with the Department, which failed to provide corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the Department had not made any effort to prove the classification with documentary evidence and relied solely on the breakage of some goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department must prove misclassification with substantial evidence, which was lacking in this case.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. It set aside the re-export order and directed the Customs authorities to release the consignments within two weeks. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper classification and adherence to statutory provisions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found