|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 219 Records
-
1991 (11) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Gold - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... for use by the tourist then the Customs authorities would be fully justified in confiscating the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited two decisions of the Tribunals in an attempt to show that re-export should have been ordered. In our opinion this is a wrong understanding of the law. Whenever an attempt is made to smuggle goods into the country whether by a tourist or by a professional smuggler and the article is recovered by the customs authorities then unless and until the Customs authorities come to the conclusion that the article is for bona fide use of the passenger the question of a right to re-export being granted does not arise. The rules in this country clearly indicate the value of the articles which can be brought, the number and quantity of the articles which can be brought and if there is an attempt to violate the law then the person must suffer the consequences. 12. In our opinion there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
-
1991 (11) TMI 82 - SC ORDER
Pre-deposit - Undue hardships ... ... ... ... ..... ded in the event of the appeal of the Union of India before the Division Bench being allowed. The order of the Division Bench is modified to this extent. The bank guarantee should be furnished within six weeks from today and kept alive till the disposal of the appeal before the Division Bench. Final directions regarding the bank guarantee will be given by the Division Bench at the time of disposal of the appeal. As the point involved in the appeal is very short one, it will be open to the appellant to seek an expeditious disposal of the appeal in the High Court. 2. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sugar - Incentive rebate for higher production ... ... ... ... ..... tion in this behalf has no merit. But the Government of India, has to take note of the fact that when an incentive is to be given to maximise the production during the lean period, the manufacturer should be informed in advance so that they could plan with reference to the extension of the area of sugarcane cultivation, to the extension of the increase of sugarcane plantations and consequential increase of sugarcane supply so that there can be increase in the sugar production. In the instant case, the Government of India had not taken note of all those relevant factors, which are absolutely necessary if the incentive is to increase production during the lean period. In future, the Government of India should take note of all the basic factors while granting exemptions. With this observation, and as a result of the aforesaid conclusion that are arrived at and as there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned notification, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the `industrial coconut oil' was a canalised item and the appellants were not entitled to import the same?
Held that:- the appellants were not entitled to import the `industrial coconut oil' under OGL as the Import Policy of 1980-81 had been amended with effect from 3-4-1981. Any import of `industrial coconut oil' made by any importer would be illegal as under the Import Policy only the STC had authority to import the canalised item. The respondent-authorities were therefore, justified in confiscating the goods imported by the appellants and giving option to the appellants to retrieve the goods on payment of redemption fine.
We allow the appeals, set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and direct that the appellants shall pay redemption fine to the extent of 35 per cent of ₹ 5 crores which amount has been determined as the redemption fine by the authorities. If the appellants have paid any excess amount the same shall be refunded to them within six weeks, in default the appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of this order.
-
1991 (11) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT
Demand - Customs - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... marketing practice. There was no short levy of duty as the respondent-Company was not liable to pay any separate duty on the containers, and duty had already been paid on the import of the RBD Palm Oil. We further agree with the High Court s view that the containers are not liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d), (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act is illegal and the same have rightly been quashed. 4. So far as the interpretation of Sections 28 and 47 of the Customs Act is concerned we do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the findings recorded by the High Court and we leave the question open. 5. We, accordingly, hold that the High Court was justified in quashing the show cause notice issued under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to release the goods to the respondent. 6. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Baggage - Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... any warehoused goods shall pay to the warehouse-keeper rent and warehouse charges at the rates fixed under any law for the time being in force or where no rates are so fixed, at such rates as may be fixed by the Collector of Customs. We have seen above, rates for warehousing baggage have not been fixed by the first respondent and Public Notice 29/86 in effect specifies under clause (vii) that charges for warehousing baggage for the period it is detained will not be charged by the Airports Authority, the first respondent. 15. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the first respondent is not entitled to charge any demurrage in all these cases and the petitioners are entitled to have their goods transhipped to Nepal without payment of any ground rent/demurrage charges. 16. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and rule is made absolute. The respondents shall allow transhipment of the goods subject-matter of these writ petitions forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... e stand taken by the respondents to deny the same, the impugned orders are hereby quashed to facilitate the concerned and competent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner on merits including any plea of limitation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Amendment Act, 40/1991. The petitioner, in addition to the representations and claims made already which culminated in the impugned proceedings shall be at liberty to make such further or other representations to the concerned and competent authorities in the light of the amended provisions within eight weeks from today and as and when such representations are made, the concerned and competent authorities shall also consider the same in accordance with law including the question of delay in making the claim and pass appropriate orders regarding the claim of the petitioner. The writ petitions are partly allowed to the extent indicated above, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Writ Jurisdiction - Breach of contract ... ... ... ... ..... ubmitted that duty if at all could be levied would be under Heading No. 89.04 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and that there is no other heading in which the articles sold to the petitioner would fall. Item No. 89.04 reads as follows - 89.04 Ships, boats and other vessels for breaking up 40 It was also contended that in similar cases in past no duty was charged and if the duty is levied the petitioner would be treated with hostile discrimination. 7. When we proceeded to consider the aforesaid submissions on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the court has found that it would not be proper to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as indicated hereinabove, the petitioner does not press all other contentions. In view of this position, all the aforesaid contentions are rejected as having not been pressed and therefore they are not required to be dealt with in details. 8. In the result, the petition is rejected. Rule discharged.
-
1991 (11) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... security for payment of the difference between the amounts of duty leviable under sub-head 2502.90 and 2502.20. 21. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to direct the respondents to provisionally assess the excise duty under sub-head 2502.20 till the dispute regarding the revision of the rate of excise duty leviable on the petitioner s white cement is finally decided if the petitioner executes bond in the proper form to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 1 and furnishes bank guarantee for the payment of the difference between the amounts of duty as provisionally assessed and as finally assessed with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and also to direct the Collector, Central Excise to pass necessary order under Rule 9B(3) of the Rules if the petitioner approaches him for an order thereunder. Directions are accordingly given. 22. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Demand - Show cause notice - Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... proper to ask the appellant to approach the appellate authority. In this connection, we adopt the reasoning of one of us (Kanakaraj, J) in Madura Coats Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise 1990 (48) E.L.T. 321 (Madras) . 7. The order, dated 6-6-1981 is set aside. The appellant will be given an opportunity to file a fresh explanation to the show cause notice, dated 26-11-1980. The 2nd respondent will consider the plea of limitation in the light of Sec. 11A(1) and the Proviso and decide whether the demand of excise duty for the period from 1-4-1979 to 26-6-1980 or for any portion of the period is within the prescribed time and pass a fresh order. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. Instead of the prayer in the Writ Petition, the impugned order dated 6-6-1981 is set aside and the matter remitted back to the 2nd respondent for passing a fresh order in the light of the directions given supra. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... f the Act. Mr. P. Narasimhan, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel heavily relies upon Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, cited supra. I do not think that for the purpose of this case, that point which arose in the abovementioned decision of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra, has to be decided at this stage, since I am satisfied that the matter has to go back to the Adjudicating Officer on the ground that there is no finding with regard to the value of the non-declared goods, and the redemption fine and imposition of penalty have been done without application of mind, forgetting that Adjudicating Officers are exercising quasi-judicial functions. In view of that, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Officer for making an order of adjudication afresh within four weeks after giving opportunity to the petitioner herein. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Normal production of tread rubber arrived at by taking into account only the amount of sulphur found short
-
1991 (11) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bail - Statement of co-accused prima facie ... ... ... ... ..... ainst his own order in the High Court, which was not proper. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit or substance in any of the contentions raised by Mr. Kapadia in this petition and therefore, this Revision Application is required to be rejected. At this stage, I may state that Mr. Naik and Mr. Kapadia learned advocates for the respective parties have cited number of authorities and an affidavit is also filed on behalf of customs deptt. Not only that personal affidavits have also been filed by Mr. Kapadia and Mr. Naik. However, in view of the above discussion they are not required to be dealt with, as I am of the opinion that the ld. Magistrate has committed an error in releasing the petitioners on bail and the ld. Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the Revision Application filed by the customs department and set aside the order passed by the ld. Magistrate releasing the petitioners on bail. 13. In the result, this Revision Application fails and is dismissed.
-
1991 (11) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund of duty on returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... to the requirement of notification under Rule 12 of the Rules. (3) Anup Engineering Ltd. v. Collector 1987 (29) E.L.T. 215 . Except the observation in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1988 (36) E.LT. 435 noticed by me none of the authorities above cited come to the aid of the petitioner in the interpretation of Rule 173L or Rule 12 of the Rules. Mr. Jayachandran for the Revenue sought to contend that against the order of the Tribunal, the only remedy of the petitioner is to seek a reference under Section 130 of the Customs Act. I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy because the writ petition has been pending in this court from the year 1983. 9. For what I have stated above relating to the applicability of Rule 173L and Rule 12 of the Rules I hold that the petitioner cannot get any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Refund - Customs - Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... provision contained in S. 27(1) of the Act. The approach to those authorities, if made by the petitioner would have been futile. So I do not think it proper to non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternate remedies have not been exhausted. In exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution it is open to this court to pass such orders as public interest dictates and equity projects. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that petitioner is entitled to get refund of Rs. 44,766.07 claimed in Ext. P3 application. Respondents are directed to issue orders refunding this amount to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In case the amount is not refunded within that period it will carry interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the expiry of that period of one month till the date of payment. Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Issue carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.
-
1991 (11) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Short-landing of goods - Customs - Duty free goods viz. sugar imported by S.T.C. ... ... ... ... ..... Customs department were lost by that time. In my view, there is inordinate and unexplained delay in issuance of the show cause notice after a long lapse of seven years for which no explanation is forthcoming from the respondents. Another curious fact is that the penalty of Rs. 6,58,11,533/- was originally imposed under Section 16 of the Customs Act, which was reduced to Rs. 13 lakhs by the Deputy Collector of Customs in appeal. Collector of Customs further brought down the quantum of penalty to Rs. 10 lakhs. It is not clear why the quantum of penalty was reduced. There is no clear finding that the material facts were withheld by the petitioner from the Customs. On the contrary, duty free commodities were imported by S.T.C. through the petitioner. I have anxiously considered all the aspects of the case and I am of the view that this writ petition must succeed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Let a writ do issue in terms of prayers A, B and C of the writ application.
-
1991 (11) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ Jurisdiction - Exemption - Claim thereof - Existence of Alternate Remedy ... ... ... ... ..... petitioners, the concerned authority shall consider the same objectively and in the light of the judgments relied on by the petitioners, and thereafter adjudicate and decide the issue. If still the petitioners, after-such adjudication, are aggrieved, they shall be at liberty to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The writ petitioners during pendency of the writ petitions appear to have obtained an interim order and given bank guarantee subject to the result of the writ petitions. Further course of action in respect of such bank guarantees will abide by the result of the adjudication by the respondents, provided the petitioners move the authorities with appropriate applications within six weeks from this date. 7. With the above observation and liberty granted, in my view nothing survives for adjudication in these cases in the light of what has been held supra. The writ petitions, therefore, shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... ave noticed above, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and consequently the writ petition would stand dismissed. It would however, be open to the writ petitioner to raise objections to the show cause notice and lead such evidence as is necessary to arrive at a finding of fact and the authorities shall consider those objections and evidence, if any, and decide the matter in accordance with law. Since, the time during which objections had to be filed to the show cause notice expired during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, in the interests of justice, we grant six weeks time from to-day to the writ petitioner to submit objections to the show cause notice. The authorities shall, after objections are submitted, decide the matter in accordance with law after granting opportunity to the parties, if so requested, of personal hearing, expeditiously. The writ appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Adjudication - Natural justice - Cross-examination ... ... ... ... ..... bay is not allowed. It is this letter which is sought to be impugned in this writ petition. 3. In our opinion, the Collector ought to have resorted to Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is within the powers of the Collector to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce documents and prove the same during the enquiry. In the circumstance we direct the Collector of Customs, Bombay, to invoke Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and call upon (summon) the Professor of I.I.T., Bombay, who has given C.C. report which is being relied upon by the respondent during enquiry. 4. In the result, writ petition succeeds. The communication dated 4th April 1991 (Ex. H) is quashed and set aside and Collector of Customs, Bombay, is directed to exercise powers under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. 6. Certified copy of the order if applied for, to be furnished within one week.
-
1991 (11) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... issued by the Department on 20-1-1989 as well as the notification issued by the Collector of Customs dated 19-7-1991. There is a Standing Order issued by the Collector of Customs in Ref. 31/90 to the same effect. Consequently, what remains to be done in these writ petitions is to direct the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, 8th Division, Madras, now impleaded as a party and ranked as second respondent, to pass orders on the refund applications by computing the amount payable to each of the petitioners and to make payment accordingly. The petitioners will file formal applications for refund and the respondents will pass orders within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the applications for refund. I make it clear that the respondents cannot raise any question of limitation because the writ petitions had been filed on 31-3-1989 and the pendency of these writ petitions will enure to the benefit of the petitioners. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.
....
|
