Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1962 1962 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 85 of 85 Records

• 1962 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Writ jurisdiction - Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Seizure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Collector passed. He never took the point that the Collector had no jurisdiction to apply Section 178A. We may also add here that the gold bars bore the number 999 which is a number found on imported gold only. 6.Then it was said that the notice was bad because it was issued by the seizing officer. We will assume that it was so issued. We are not however satisfied that such a notice will be bad. No authority in support of such a contention had been cited to us. 7.Lastly, it was contended that the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- had been wrongly imposed because the petitioner could not on the facts be said to have been concerned in the act of smuggling the gold. We think it enough to dispose of this point by saying that we are dealing with this matter on a writ petition under Article 32 and as no error of jurisdiction is alleged, there is no violation of any fundamental right. 8.It seems to us that this petition is wholly without foundation and we therefore, dismiss it with costs.

  ---

• 1962 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether on the facts proved Sitaram Agarwala could be held to be "concerned in" the importation of gold into this country?

  Held that:- The High Court was right in its judgment in regard to the facts of the case and their being insufficient to bring the respondent Sitaram Agarwala within the words "concerned in". Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1962 (9) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
  

  Writ - Scope of territorial jurisdiction - Appeal filed - dismissed

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... a deceased respondent, was a final order affirming the decision of the Court below. If orders of the type dealt with by the Allahabad and Lahore High Courts or orders affirming the decision of the court below, then clearly the orders of the Collector, Central Excise, and the Government of India dismissing the petitioner s appeal and revision must be held to be orders affirming the decision of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Raipur. The affirmance of the order necessarily involves the merger of the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, in the order of the appellate and the revisional authorities. 7. For these reasons we are of the opinion that this application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision of the original authority, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raipur, must be and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.

  ---

• 1962 (9) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE AT BANGALORE
  

  Confiscation of contravening goods seized from the purchaser - Rules 9(2) and 173-Q.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... , and shall also be liable to a penalty which may extend to two thousand rupees, and such goods shall be liable to confiscation. 5. It is true that the liability to pay the duty due as well as to pay the penalty is cast on the manufacturer or producer and the purchaser has no responsibility to pay either the duty or the penalty. But Rule 9(2) goes further and lays down that the goods concerned are liable for confiscation. It is not possible to hold that the action of the authorities in confiscating the goods is not in accordance with Rule 9(2). The vires of this Rule was not questioned before us. The petitioner may have his own remedies as against the manufacturer or producer. But he cannot validly object to the confiscation of the goods in question. 6. We are unable to agree with Sri Ranga Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the order of confiscation is not in accordance with Rule 9(2). 7. In the result, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

  ---

• 1962 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the respondents in the three respective appeals who carry on business in the manufacture of art silk fabrics, are entitled to claim exemption from the excise duty under Item 12A(v) which was inserted in First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (No. 1 of 1944) by the Finance Act, 1954 (No. 17 of 1954)?

  Held that:- As we feel no difficulty in holding that for the purpose of Item 12A(v) the three persons cannot be said to be the same person as claimed by the appellants. If it was the intention of the legislature to exclude cases like the present from the purview of the exemption clause, then it must be held that the legislature has failed to use appropriate words to carry out that intention. We were told that for subsequent years, the relevant item in the Schedule has been suitably modified and the present question is, therefore, not likely to arise in future. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

12345