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

        Appeal Granted: Customs Act Confiscation Overturned, Emphasizing Compliance and No Malafide Intentions

        M/s Beverly Hills Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ghazipur, New Delhi

        M/s Beverly Hills Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ghazipur, New Delhi - 2022 (381) E.L.T. 555 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:
        1. Confiscation of imported goods under the Customs Act.
        2. Violation of provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
        3. Jurisdiction of the port of entry for imported goods.
        4. Issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' for release of goods.
        5. Adjudication of penalties under the Customs Act.

        Analysis:
        1. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the appellant was rightly subjected to the confiscation of imported Assorted Deodorant valued at Rs. 28,51,851/- under the Customs Act. The appellant imported the goods through ICD Garhi Harsaru, and the Assessing Group found discrepancies in the consignment during examination. The Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed a fine and penalty under Section 125(1) and Section 112(a) respectively.

        2. The violation of provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant imported cosmetics, including Deodorant, which were found to be in violation of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 as import of drugs and cosmetics was not allowed at ICD Garhi Harsaru. Despite obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Drugs Controlling Authority, the goods were still confiscated due to the violation.

        3. The issue of the jurisdiction of the port of entry for imported goods was raised as the appellant argued that the goods were initially destined for clearance from ICD Patparganj, a notified port. However, due to logistical issues, the shipment was diverted to ICD Garhi Harsaru. The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional aspect and concluded that the goods were imported through a notified sea port and fell under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj.

        4. The issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate' for release of goods after inspection played a significant role in the case. The competent authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act issued the certificate, indicating that the goods were safe for import. This certification, along with the registration of the appellant under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, influenced the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order.

        5. The adjudication of penalties under the Customs Act was also a critical issue. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a fine and penalty on the appellant for the alleged violations. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, found no deliberate violation by the appellant and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits, emphasizing compliance with the law and the absence of malafide intentions.

        This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved in the case and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and implications of the judgment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found