Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs SC Customs - SC This
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Customs - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 1741 to 1757 of 1757 Records

  • 1961 (8) TMI 27

    Does the fact that the petitioners have been granted licence approximately for 45% of the total value of the goods exported amount to discrimination entitling them to protection of Art. 14 of the Constitution ? - Held that - On the materials placed before the Committee.-.there. evidence to show that the record produced by the petitioners was unsatisfactory ; they were not satisfied that the prices which the petitioners said they had paid for purc....... + More


  • 1961 (4) TMI 83

    Whether the High Court should have rejected the writ petition of the respondent in limine because he had not exhausted all the statutory remedies open to him for having his grievance redressed? - Held that - On the whole and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of this case that the High Court has not exercised its discretion improperly in entertaining the writ application or granting the relief prayed for by the respondent and that no ....... + More


  • 1961 (4) TMI 9

    Whether a particular policy as regards imports is, on a consideration of all the various factors involved, in the general interests of the public? - Held that - The attack on the validity of para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955 fails. The contention that Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, is bad to the extent that it permits the Government to make an order as in para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955, consequent....... + More


  • 1961 (4) TMI 2

    Penalty can be recovered only by officer of customs and not by Chief Customs Authority - Confiscation - Commutation of order of confiscation to penalty....... + More


  • 1961 (3) TMI 90

    Whether respondents 1 and 2 have cancelled the licences in circumstances which amounted to a denial of its right to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as provided by cl. 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, before the impugned orders were passed and thus arbitrarily and without authority of law deprived the petitioner of its fundamental right to carry on its business under Art. 19 of the constitution? - Held that - It is not ne....... + More


  • 1960 (10) TMI 1

    Whether onus of proving the import of the goods lay on the appellant? - Held that - We cannot accept the contention that by reason of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act the onus lies on the appellant to prove that he brought the said items of goods into India in 1947. If Section 106 of the Evidence Act is applied, then, by analogy, the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence must equally be invoked. If so, it follows that t....... + More


  • 1960 (8) TMI 81

    Petitions are filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports. the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pondicherry, the Board of Revenue, and the Government of India, and for an appropriate direction requiring the respondents to refund the amount realised from the petitioners - Held that - Paragraph 6 of the Order saves the transactions entered into by the petitioners and tha....... + More


  • 1959 (12) TMI 1

    Whether the provision for cancellation of licences on the ground that they have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public on the exercise of the petitioners right under Article 19(1)(f) and (g)? - Held that - On a consideration of the entire background in which the notice for cancellation was issued, what was stated by the petitioners in their letter dated September 27, and what....... + More


  • 1959 (5) TMI 19

    Whether the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on 16-9-1952, was without jurisdiction? - Held that - In the present case, as the requisite authority had been granted by the Reserve Bank on 27-1-1953 to file a complaint, the complaint filed on February 2, was one which complied with the provisions of Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Additional District Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence which, indeed, he did o....... + More


  • 1958 (11) TMI 7

    Court - Revenue authorities (Customs authorities) are not courts of law - Departmental proceedings - Punishment - Double jeopardy....... + More


  • 1958 (5) TMI 1

    Penalty, confiscation and fine - Redemption of goods - Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation - Gold pledged to bank....... + More


  • 1957 (10) TMI 1

    Whether the petitioners had previously been prosecuted and punished for the same offence for which they are now being prosecuted before the Additional District Magistrate? - Held that - The proceedings before the Customs authorities were under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. Under Section 186 of that Act, the award of any confiscation, penalty or increased rate of duty under that Act by an officer of Customs does not prevent the infliction....... + More


  • 1957 (5) TMI 1

    Redemption fine - Confiscation - Penalty - Natural justice - Fine and penalty - Imposition is a quasi-judicial function....... + More


  • 1957 (4) TMI 54

    Whether Lyra brand crayons should be assessed under item 45(a) as stationery not otherwise specified or item 45(4), as coloured pencils? - Held that - With regard to the first two grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners it is abundantly clear that the petitioners have had a full hearing before two successive Collectors of Customs, Calcutta and their grievance as to the violation of the principles of natural justice is totally devoid of merit. ....... + More


  • 1954 (5) TMI 27

    ... ...
    ... ... ption which can be rebutted. o p /o p In these circumstances, there can be no doubt whatever that s. 178-A does not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution and this petition is, therefore, to be dismissed with costs. o p /o p Petition dismissed. o p /o p


  • 1953 (11) TMI 1

    ... ...
    ... ... manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the State was unable to support the decision of the High Court on this point. The appeal will therefore be allowed and the order of confiscation of the two blocks of gold set aside.


  • 1953 (4) TMI 19

    Whether by reason of the proceedings taken by the sea Customs Authorities the appellant could be said to have been prosecuted and punished for the same offence with which he was charged in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay? - Held that - The prosecution of Jagjit Singh therefore before the Magistrate for the offences under sections 332 and 353 and sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code is not in violation of article 20 (....... + More


....88
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.