Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Manufacture - Central Excise - Dutiability - Constitutional validity of - Charging section for levy
-
1987 (7) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Seizure of redeemed goods illegal ... ... ... ... ..... could not have seized the goods once again after giving an option to the petitioners to release the same on payment of fine. If at all the Customs authorities wanted to have the order revived, they should have done so after proceedings under Section 129(d) of the Customs Act. Mr. M.R. Sathe for the petitioners drew my attention to the case of Dina Baldev v. Collector of Customs, reported in 63 Bombay Law Reporter (Page 873). It clearly lays down the proposition that such an action would be a nullity and can be set aside. In the result, I pass the following order 4. The seizure memo dated 15th December, 1981 stands quashed and set aside. The personal bonds executed by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 14th January, 1982 do stand discharged and the bonds to be returned to the petitioners for cancellation. The respondents will also return Monitor Set which is still lying with them. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation - Mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... cations for refund were rejected on the ground that the same were preferred after a period of six months of payment of duty. The petitioners took the matter right up to the Government level, but they were turned out. 4. It is clear that the said levy of countervailing duty was clearly without the authority of law, and if that is so, there can be no question of limitation for the purpose of claiming refund of the duty collected by the respondents. The respondents themselves have accepted their mistake and it is a clear case wherein both the parties were under a clear mistke of law. In the result, this petition will have to be allowed. ORDER 5. Rule made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. However, interest shall be at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till payment. Amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. 6. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund claim - Methyl cellulose - Additional duty of customs - Duty recovered without authority of law - Limitation
-
1987 (7) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Exemption scheme ... ... ... ... ..... basis of duty-free importation. The position has been clarified by the notification, dated 5-6-1987 by which the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of duty-free importation of goods which have already been used as components and raw materials for manufacture for the purpose of replacement or replenishment. As such it is not necessary to decide the question in view of the notification prevailing prior to the impugned notification, the petitioner was entitled to import the goods duty-free or not. In the instant case, after the notification, dated 5-6-1987 no duty is payable in respect of the goods-in-question, in view of the notification, dated 5-6-1987, accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to clear the goods without payment of customs duty and the Customs Authorities will clear the goods in question on the basis of the said notification, dated 5-6-1987. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition succeed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Import of raw materials as actual user on misdeclaration - Confiscation and penalty - Industrial licence - Revision by Collector - Review proceedings
-
1987 (7) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Drugs and medicines ... ... ... ... ..... ndents to notify..... . 5. The contention of the company is over-stated, for what is said in para 67 of the Supreme Court was more with reference to free press In view of the intimate connection of newsprint with the freedom of the press, the tests for determining the vires of a statute taxing newsprint have, therefore, to be different from the tests usually adopted for testing the vires of other taxing statutes. In the case of ordinary taxing statutes, the laws may be questioned only if they are either openly confiscatory or a colourable device to confiscate. On the other hand, in the case of a tax on newsprint, it may be sufficient to show a distinct and noticeable burdensomeness, clearly and directly attributable to the tax. To a taxing statute like Customs Act, 1962 , referred as ordinary Act, what was said in the case is not relevant. Judged from that perspective, no case is made out for the interference of this Court. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERA
Jute manufacturers ... ... ... ... ..... r it fell under any particular item was not real consequence it does not appear that the government described it as one falling under Item No. 68 after due and proper application of mind on the question. 10. Now that we find that the goods would fall under Item No. 22A of the First Schedule of the Act and that whatever duty was payable must have been paid by the manufacturer of the jute who sold the jute to the petitioner and no further levy of excise duty is permissible treating it as falling under Item No. 68, it is not necessary for us to consider the question pertaining to limitation. We do not, therefore, pronounce anything on the merits of the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to that. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing the order of the first respondent to the extent it was detrimental to the petitioner and to the extent it was object to in the Writ petition. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Detention - Preventive detention ... ... ... ... ..... A Act was taken on 15th September, 1986, for which there was no necessity, even then thereafter there is a long delay of 38 days for which no valid explanation is forthcoming. 18. The facts reveal that a very casual approach was given to an important order of detention and its due execution on the detenue. Prima facie, the explanation as disclosed in the counter affidavit is not convincing. It reveals a complete disregard of the urgency it deserved, while dealing with the case of preventive detention. This circumstance by itself is enough to quash the order of detention. 19. Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised other points but to my mind there is no need to go into the same as on both the courts the petition is liable to succeed. 20. As a result of the above discussion, I accept the petition and quash the order of detention. The petitioner be released forthwith unless required to be detained under any other orders of a competent Court or Authority.
-
1987 (7) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Notification No. 193/81-CE - Exemption - Aluminium ... ... ... ... ..... ovember 13, 1982. By way of an amendment to the petition, those provisos to the said notifications have also been challenged in the present petition. All those provisos as provided under those notifications will also have to be necessarily struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the result the petitioners must succeed and I, therefore, pass the following order Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (b-1). As regards the amount to be refunded, I direct that the Government should refund the entire amount paid by virtue of application of the proviso to the said notifications, within a period of three months from today. 16. It appears that the petitioners have furnished some bank guarantees at the interim stage. The same will also stand discharged and the same are to be cancelled and to be handed over to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. 17. The petitioners are also entitled to the costs of this petition.
-
1987 (7) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Packing - Cost of cartons and partitions - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... he price list and the claim relating to deductions within a period of another twelve weeks thereafter. The assessing authority will be at liberty to assess the evidence in his own way and come to such conclusion as he thinks proper. If thereafter the assessing authority makes a final assessment, it is for the petitioners to pay the same, subject to such rights as the petitioners may avail of either by way of appeal to the Collector of Central Excise or by way of a writ petition as would be advised. I only hope that if the claim of the department is heavy, a reasonable attitude, would be adopted by the department, with regard to time for payment. Final assessment will take into account all the amount which the petitioners have already paid so far. 22. Having regard to the order passed above, naturally, the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector being Ex. No, I in both the petitions stand set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Provisional collection of Taxes Act, 1931 - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... of this, this petition will have to be allowed. 10. I, therefore, pass the following order The declaration made by the Government at the time of introducing the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980 insofar as it relates to Clauses 46 and 46B read with Item No. 47 of the Tariff as contained in Para 1 of the third schedule of the said Bill, item (vi) is ultra vires the Section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. Consequently the collection of excise duty by virtue of the said declaration is without the authority of law for the period from June 18, 1980 to August 25, 1980. I, therefore, direct that the respondents should refund the said amount of Rs. 9,16,678.01 to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. However, in the event the said amount is not repaid within a period of three months, the respondents would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per annum from today. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Countervailing duty on goods not manufactured in India ... ... ... ... ..... the other regarding the payment of excise or additional duty. Both requirements must be complied with before lead can be the said lead under the said notification. Though, in my view, it is possible for the Court to take a different view than what the learned Judge has taken, and though 1 was invited to do so by Mr. Talyarkhan and refer the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before the Division Bench, I would not do so, inasmuch as, judicial discipline demands that one Judge should not differ from the other unless the difference is distinct and clear. Unfortunately, for me, I do not have the benefit of the arguments on the part of the Government as to how the learned Judge was persuaded to take the view that he has taken. 5. In the result, I will be not be able to grant any relief to the petitioners, and, I therefore, pass the following order The petition fails and the rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation for claiming refund inapplicable if duty paid twice over same goods ... ... ... ... ..... . Vahanvati has drawn my attention to a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Bharucha dated November 5, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 496 of 1981 (Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and others), wherein the learned Judge has clearly stated, in similar circumstances, that there was no justification for refusal of the customs authorities to permit the petitioners to clear 17 cases, (which had been over carried and brought back to Bombay) without payment of customs duty anew. There, of course, the petitioners had come to the Court, before the duty was paid. In the present case, the petitioners felt that they had no choice but to pay the duty and clear the goods. 6. In the result 1 pass the following Order Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). However the interest shall be paid at the rate of 15 per annum from the date of collection till refund, by the respondents. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Intermediate product which is not marketable is not liable to excise duty - Evidence - Classification of goods
-
1987 (7) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Manufacturer - Brand name/Trade name - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... of years during which time the petition remains in this Court and even interim orders by consent are obtained. In the present case, I find a certain minutes of the order at the interim stage which obviously must have been passed after hearing both the advocates and the respondents found no fault with the order at any stage. 16. I may also mention that in the present case, the petitioners have pleaded that ex facie, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and ultra vires and, therefore, they are entitled to approach this Court at the present stage. 17. In the result, the petitioners must succeed and I, therefore, pass the following order The rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners to the Prothonotary and Senior Master do stand discharged and they are to be cancelled and handed over to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Detention - Preventive detention ... ... ... ... ..... bviously is an explanation which has been put forward for the sake of explanation and is neither factually nor legally valid or plausible. It is obvious that the detaining authority has been indifferent lethargically to the consideration of the representation of the detenu and thereby the safeguards guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) have been violated. It is impossible for the court to grant any allowance to the detaining authority for such indifference. To my mind, therefore, there has been an unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in consideration of the petitioner s representation. On this score alone the detention is vitiated. 9. Having said so there is hardly any need for me to go into the other contentions of the petitioner or make any comments on their merits or otherwise. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The detention of the petitioner is quashed. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case.
-
1987 (7) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Import of woollen rags ... ... ... ... ..... have already been inspected. We were told by the respondents that they shall be issuing notice to the petitioner for adjudication. It shall be now for the concerned authorities to take a decision on the merits of the case. 14. Shri Sen contended that the goods are lying at the railway godown and they are incurring heavy demurrage and the respondents should be asked to store them in public warehouse. It shall be for the petitioner to make an application under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter it will be for the Assistant Collector to order the storage of the goods in question in a public warehouse or a private warehouse pending determination as to whether the goods have been legally imported or whether they are excisable to customs duty. We, however, direct that in case the petitioner makes an application under Section 49 the Assistant Collector shall decide the application without any delay. 15. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Intermediate product having no commercial use or marketability - Not liable to duty ... ... ... ... ..... nd I pass the following order ORDER 12. Rule made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the petition. The Bank Guarantees given by the petitioners during the pendency of this petition do stand discharged. The Department is directed to cancel all these bank guarantees within a period of six weeks from today and hand over the same to the petitioners. 13. Mr. Mehta for the petitioners, at this stage, points out that there one bank guarantee for the period April 1982 to March 1987 for Rs. 3,45,000/-. The said bank guarantee expires on 30th June, 1987. However, the same has been renewed but has not been filed with the Department. Mr. Mehta submits that in view of the above order, the petitioners may be directed that it is not necessary to file the bank guarantee with the Department. 14. 8195 I accordingly direct the petitioners that they need not file the said bank guarantee. 15. The petitioners are also entitled to the costs of this petition from the respondents.
-
1987 (7) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Customs - Detention of imported goods lying at railway depot under heavy demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... ted or whether they are excisable to customs duty. He further contends that to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 49 of the Act, the owner of the goods has to make a petition to the Assistant Collector seized of the matter for passing the necessary orders for the storage of the goods. He further stated that in the present case no such application has been filed by the applicant. If a proper application is made in this behalf, the same shall be decided without any delay. In view of the clear language of Section 49, it is imperative for the petitioner to seek his relief under Section 49 from the Asstt. Collector concerned by making a proper application. I hope and trust that if an application under Section 49 is made by the applicant, the same shall be disposed of without any delay or loss of any time keeping in view of the huge losses which are being suffered by the petitioner in the form of payment of demurrage. 4. With these observations, the prayer for stay disposed of.
............
|