M.J.EXPORTS LTD. vs. CUSTOMS,EX.&GOLD(CONTROL)APP.TRI

302 and therefore cannot be allowed for re-exports as such. By its order dated 22.10.1990 the Collector of Customs held that the goods exported were liable to confiscation under section 113(d) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.50 lakhs under section 114. However, the Collector held that the goods imported were not liable

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68. We are quite befuddled by the answers given by the expert about flash point, as if he was not aware of the importance of flash point in petroleum products. He was Page 59 of 76 evasive as regards nonconformity on this parameter in determining whether the samples are those of HSD. Flash point has been mentioned in the Supplementary

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

68 133. One of the arguments of the Revenue before us was that the Mauritius route was not available to HTIL for the reason indicated above. In this connection, it was urged that the legal owner of HEL (Indian company) was not HTIL. Under the transaction, HTIL alone was the seller of the shares. VIH wanted to enter into

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

302-303 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III ...APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 require adjudication on the question as to whether 1 “car matting