TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Appeal Rejected: Tribunal's Original Decision Stands Firm After Comprehensive Review of Legal Arguments</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Versus Padget Electronics Pvt. Ltd.</h3> SC dismissed the Civil Appeal after reviewing the arguments, finding no error in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's original ... Classification of imported goods - front cover, middle cover and back cover and few other parts of the mobile phones - to be classified under CTH 85177090 or under CTH 39209999? - front lenses and camera lenses imported by the appellants classifiable under CTH 90021100/85177090 (as claimed by the appellants) or under CTH 39209999? - it was held by CESTAT that the classification of none of the goods in any of the appeals under CTH 39209999 as held by the Commissioner in the impugned orders can be sustained. HELD THAT:- There are no error in the view taken by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court, with Hon'ble Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih presiding, condoned the delay in filing the Civil Appeal. Upon hearing counsel for the appellant, the Court found 'no error in the view taken by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.' Consequently, the Civil Appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
