2007 (8) TMI 720

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....na Shah for Respondent JUDGEMENT 1) On behalf of the Respondents, the learned counsel contended that this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal considering the provisions of Section 130(E) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is submitted that the substantial questions of law as framed relate to the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment and consequently the appeal as filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeal No. 12 of 2007 in the case of The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai vs. M/s Noble Asset Co. Ltd. & Others. 3) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. B.V. Jewels, 2004 (172) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). In para 30 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tatus and the question of date from which such status would become applicable. The learned Division Bench proceeded to examine the expression "assessment" and relying on the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3 (SC) proceeded to hold that the question of determination of the status of....