9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been able to show us any other decision contrary to the one relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly, company is a legal person in the eyes of law and the goods belonging to the company would be the private personal property of the company. no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue’s appeal is rejected. - Appeal No. 240 of 2008 - Final Order No. C/55879/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 174-Cus. For clearance of their goods imported after repairs or not, as their private personal property. I find that the appellant have emphasized about the issue regarding private personal property which has already be decided/settled by Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India as reported in 2004 (175) E.L.T. 93 (Bombay). In the light of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the impugned order and allow the appeals. 3. As is seen from above, the Appellate Authority has held the returned goods to be a private personal property of the respondent, by following the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision. Learned DR has not been able to show us any other decision contrary to the one relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly, company is a legal person in the eyes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
