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>Court allows drawback claim, emphasizes liberal interpretation of procedural rules. Dismisses reference application.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI Versus TERAI OVERSEAS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI Versus TERAI OVERSEAS LTD. - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 841 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the drawback is allowable in terms of Rule 13(2)(iv) of the Drawback Rules, 1995, given the invalid insurance certificate submitted by the exporters.Summary:Issue: Drawback Allowability u/r 13(2)(iv) of the Drawback Rules, 19951. Background and Contracts: - M/s. Terai Overseas Limited (TOL) entered into a contract with M/s. Avia Exports, Moscow, and subsequently with M/s. Dugar Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aruna Impex Pvt. Ltd. for manufacturing and exporting garments. - Duty Drawback was to be assigned to TOL by the manufacturers/exporters.2. Export and Drawback Claims: - M/s. Dugar Impex and M/s. Aruna Impex exported consignments and filed Duty Drawback Claims with Customs authorities. - TOL claimed the Drawback on behalf of these firms, asserting the exports were made on its behalf.3. Show Cause Notice and Allegations: - A show cause notice was issued alleging that M/s. Dugar Impex and M/s. Aruna Impex were fictitious firms and that TOL imported rags misdeclared as high-value garments. - The insurance certificate was canceled by the Insurance Company, leading to allegations of contravention of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995.4. Replies and Contentions: - M/s. Dugar Impex and M/s. Aruna Impex confirmed their contracts with TOL and asserted their existence as juristic persons. - TOL contended that the cancellation of the insurance policy was an illegal act by the Insurance Company and that they had settled the matter with the Insurance Company.5. Commissioner of Customs' Decision: - The Commissioner of Customs rejected the claims, declaring the firms fictitious and stating TOL had no locus standi. - However, no evidence was found that the exported goods were of dubious quality, and the penalty proposal was dropped.6. CEGAT's Findings: - CEGAT held that under Rule 14 of the Drawback Rules, the drawback is payable to the exporter or its agent. - The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed exported by M/s. Dugar Impex and M/s. Aruna Impex, and these firms were not non-existent. - CEGAT ruled that the failure to produce information on their own cannot be the basis for holding that Rule 9(c) was contravened.7. Insurance Certificate Issue: - The Tribunal noted that the insurance certificate was initially attached but later canceled by the Insurance Company, with the matter being settled subsequently. - The Tribunal concluded that this dispute did not constitute a contravention of Rule 13(2)(iv).8. Court's Interpretation of Rule 13: - The Court emphasized that Rule 13(2) uses 'should' instead of 'must' or 'shall,' indicating a non-mandatory requirement. - Rule 13(3) provides for a deficiency memo if the claim is incomplete, allowing the exporter to rectify deficiencies. - No deficiency memo was issued in this case, making the claim under Rule 13(2) not incomplete.9. Legal Precedents and Liberal Interpretation: - The Court cited various judgments emphasizing liberal construction of procedural rules to further the main purpose of the Act, which is to boost exports. - The Court held that the requirement of Rule 13(2)(iv) is not mandatory and that the Tribunal's decision was correct.10. Conclusion: - The Court answered the question against the applicant and in favor of the respondents, allowing the drawback claim. - The reference application was dismissed with no order as to costs.Separate Judgment:- Hrishikesh Banerji, J. concurred with the judgment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found