Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2001 (3) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., as a partner. Shri Ramesh Nahata was also a Director of a related company called M/s. Wai Wai Stationary. M/s. Wai Wai Stationary filed the bill of entry claiming that they had made the payment for the machines. At their instance the steamer agent also sought amendment of the IGM in the relevant line. The Customs denied the request for the amendment and substituted the name of M/s. Nisu Products for M/s. Wai Wai Stationary in the bill of entry. The bill of entry was dt. 14-12-1994. The goods were shipped on 21-10-1994. On 28-10-1994 M/s. Nisu Product had contracted for takeover of a Company titled as M/s. S.M. Pen & Plastics Industries. This unit was registered, as a SSI Unit with the appropriate authorities. An application was made by M/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods but allowed redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Nisu Products. Appeal No. C/453/95-Mum is filed against this order. 6.Appeal No. C/452/95-Bom. is filed by M/s. Wai Wai Stationary Products. The prayer made is that they should have been held to have been the importers in this case. It was claimed that they were registered under the State Directorate with effect from 7-7-1993 and therefore the goods were capable of being imported by them in terms of Paragraph 25. The claim of ownership is made on the ground that the payment has been made by them. I shall revert to this later. 7.Shri Naresh Thacker submits that paragraph 25 of the Policy permits second-hand machinery....