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

        Supreme Court: Landing Charges Included in Customs Duty, Exemption Denied. Section 3(a) Validated

        GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

        GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 358 (SC), 2000 AIR 33, 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 295, 1999 (8) SCC 744, 1999 (7) JT 522, 1999 ... Issues Involved:
        1. Inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value of imported goods for customs duty.
        2. Validity of Section 3(a) of the Customs Tariff Act.
        3. Exemption from customs duty on packaging materials under Notification No. 184/76-Cus.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Inclusion of Landing Charges in Assessable Value:
        The primary issue was whether customs authorities could add landing charges to the CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) price to determine the value of imported goods for customs duty. The appellants argued that the CIF price already included all costs up to the port of discharge, and therefore, landing charges should not be added. However, the court held that under Section 14 of the Customs Act, the value of imported goods must include all costs incurred up to the point of physical delivery to the importer, which includes landing charges. The court emphasized that "delivery" and "discharge" are not synonymous, and the value must be determined at the point when the goods can be physically delivered to the importer, which is after the landing charges are paid. The court also noted that if the importer can prove that the landing charges were paid by the seller or their agent, then these charges should not be added again. However, in the cases presented, no such proof was provided, and therefore, the addition of landing charges was deemed appropriate.

        2. Validity of Section 3(a) of the Customs Tariff Act:
        The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Section 3(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, arguing that it was ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This section allowed for the charging of additional duty on the sum total of assessable value, basic customs duty, and auxiliary duty. The court referred to its previous decision in Jain Brothers v. Union of India, where it upheld the validity of this provision. Consequently, the court rejected the appellants' contention, affirming that the provision was constitutionally valid.

        3. Exemption from Customs Duty on Packaging Materials:
        The appellants sought exemption from customs duty on packaging materials under Notification No. 184/76-Cus, arguing that the cost of packaging materials should be excluded from the assessable value. The court referred to its decision in Hind Plastics v. Collector of Customs, which clarified that the notification did not contemplate the deduction of the value of packages from the invoice value but rather exempted the levy of duty on the packages separately. Therefore, the court held that the appellants were not entitled to the claimed exemption, as the cost of packaging materials was included in the total invoice price.

        Separate Judgments:
        The court delivered separate judgments for various appeals and petitions, all of which were dismissed except for Civil Appeal No. 5974 of 1994, which was dismissed as withdrawn due to pending litigation in the Bombay High Court.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value of imported goods for customs duty, validated Section 3(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, and denied the exemption from customs duty on packaging materials. All appeals and petitions were dismissed, except for one which was withdrawn.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found