M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

22. Even though the Customs Act would necessarily become attracted to Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act insofar as Anti-dumping duty is concerned, learned counsel further submitted that the Customs Act itself contained no provision for levy of interest until 13.7.2006. Section 18(3) was added only with effect from 13.7.2006 and reads as follows:- “(3) The importer

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

22(2) of the Income-tax Act but no return was made within the period specified and he died. It was held that no assessment could be made under section 23(4) of the Act after his death. At p.106 it was observed:- "It is to be noticed that there is throughout the Act no reference to the decease

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

22. Equally, this Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. CST, 1985 Supp SCC 205, held:- “The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom