SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

B.B.GUJRAL, G.SANKARAN, A.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY
Jyoti Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Bombay – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.P. Hathi,N.V. Raghavan Iyer

ORDER

1. This matter, originally a revision application against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, on being transferred to the Appellate Tribunal has been taken up as an appeal for consideration.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3. The appellants M/s. Jyoti Limited had preferred a claim for refund of duty on the ground that the goods in question viz. High Speed Camera - Dynafax Framing Camera with all accessories would fall under Heading 90.08 of the Customs Tariff Act @ 40% + 5% instead of at 100% + 20% under Heading 90.07 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo, Colaba, Bombay, on the basis of the scrutiny of various documents produced, came to the conclusion that the said Dynafax High Speed Camera is correctly classified under CTA 90.07 and not under 90.08. Hence, the refund claim was rejected as being not admissible.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector, the Appellants preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay seeking re-assessment of "High Speed Camera - Dynafax Framing Camera" under Heading 90.08 of the CTA. The Appellate Collector in the li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top