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>Court rules each mechanical seal type as separate for import; favors applicant, no fines imposed.</h1> <h3>INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 111 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of para 54B(iii) of the Import Policy of 1978-79 regarding mechanical seals.2. Consideration of each type and size of mechanical seal as a different item for import.3. Treatment of mechanical seals as separate items of spare under the Import Policy.4. Application of the more favorable interpretation of para 54B(iii) to the applicant.5. Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation despite no intent to infringe regulations.6. Liability to pay fine following the Hindustan Steel Limited case precedent.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of para 54B(iii) of the Import Policy of 1978-79 regarding mechanical sealsThe court examined whether each type and size of mechanical seal imported should be treated as a single item. The Tribunal had previously ruled that mechanical seals of various sizes and types should be treated as a single item, similar to ball and roller bearings. However, the court found that the mechanical seals, being precision tailor-made and not interchangeable, should be treated as separate items. The court emphasized that the seals were specific to their corresponding sizes and specifications in acid pumps, thus each type and size should be considered a distinct item.Issue 2: Consideration of each type and size of mechanical seal as a different item for importThe court concluded that each mechanical seal, due to its unique size and specification, should be treated as a separate item. The Import Policy allowed the import of single non-permissible spares up to Rs. 50,000/- each. Since the mechanical seals imported were of different sizes and specifications, they could not replace each other and should be considered individually. The court noted that the total value of the imported goods was Rs. 1,49,980/-, but each individual item did not exceed the Rs. 50,000/- limit.Issue 3: Treatment of mechanical seals as separate items of spare under the Import PolicyThe court referred to the definition of 'spares' in sub-para 11 of para 5 of the Import Policy, which defines a spare as a part or sub-assembly for substitution. The court found that each mechanical seal imported was a spare meant to replace an identical part in the acid pumps. Therefore, each seal should be treated as a separate item. The court emphasized that the mechanical seals were precision tailor-made and could only be used in their corresponding sizes and specifications, reinforcing the argument that they should be considered distinct items.Issue 4: Application of the more favorable interpretation of para 54B(iii) to the applicantThe court held that in cases of reasonable doubt, the interpretation most beneficial to the subject should be adopted. Since there were two possible interpretations of para 54B(iii), the court favored the one that was more favorable to the applicant. The court concluded that each mechanical seal should be treated as a separate item, and the import was valid and justified under the Import Policy.Issue 5: Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation despite no intent to infringe regulationsThe court considered whether any fine should be imposed given that the applicant had no intention to infringe the Import Trade Control Regulations. The court noted that the applicant had fully disclosed the description of the imported spares and believed in good faith that each item would be treated as a single unit. The court found no deliberate violation and concluded that no penalty or fine should have been imposed.Issue 6: Liability to pay fine following the Hindustan Steel Limited case precedentThe court referred to the Hindustan Steel Limited case, which established that penalties should not be imposed for technical or unintended violations. Given that the applicant had no intention to contravene the Import Policy and the value of the imported goods was within the prescribed limit, the court held that no fine should be imposed. The court answered the fifth and sixth questions in the negative, further supporting the applicant's case.Conclusion:The court answered questions 1 to 4 in the affirmative, supporting the applicant's interpretation of the Import Policy. Questions 5 and 6 were answered in the negative, indicating that no fine should be imposed. The court found that the import was valid and in accordance with the law, and there was no deliberate violation by the applicant. There was no order as to costs, and the judgment was concurred by both judges.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found