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 Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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
  
  Issues:
  Petition under Article 32 for quashing order of Collector of Customs confiscating gold and imposing fine.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order by the Collector of Customs confiscating gold and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The case involved the seizure of 150 gold bars from three individuals, including the petitioner, based on information received by Customs Officers. The petitioner admitted his involvement in sending the gold through the arrested individuals. The Collector of Customs issued a notice under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain the possession of the gold. However, the petitioner failed to provide any witnesses to support his explanation, leading the Collector to conclude that the gold was smuggled.
  
  In the judgment, reference was made to the decision in Ujjam Bai v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, highlighting that the validity of an order made by a quasi-judicial authority under a statute within its jurisdiction cannot be questioned through a petition under Article 32. The Collector of Customs was considered a quasi-judicial authority acting within the scope of the Sea Customs Act, which was deemed valid by the Court. The petitioner's contention that the order was passed without jurisdiction was dismissed, as there was reasonable belief that the gold seized was smuggled, supported by the circumstances of the case and the numbering on the gold bars indicating imported gold.
  
  Further arguments raised by the petitioner, including the validity of the notice issued by the seizing officer and the imposition of the penalty, were also addressed. The Court found no merit in these contentions, emphasizing that as no error of jurisdiction was alleged, there was no violation of fundamental rights under Article 32. Ultimately, the petition was deemed baseless, leading to its dismissal with costs.

  ---

• 1962 (9) TMI 4
  

  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
  
  Issues:
  Application under Articles 226 and 227 for a writ of certiorari to quash a notice by the Superintendent, Central Excise, and an order imposing a penalty for contravention of Central Excise Rules.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The petitioner filed an appeal against the Superintendent's order to the Collector, which was rejected. Subsequently, a revision petition was filed to the Government of India. The judgment cites the principle that the order of the original authority merges with the order of the appellate authority, and the High Court cannot issue a writ to the original authority if the appellate authority is beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
  
  2. Referring to a previous decision, the judgment discusses the merger of orders made by different authorities. It highlights the importance of compliance with the conditions precedent for filing appeals or revision petitions. The argument that the orders did not merge due to non-compliance with deposit requirements is rejected based on legal principles and previous court decisions.
  
  3. The judgment further discusses decisions from various High Courts regarding the dismissal of appeals and their effect on affirming the decision of the lower court. It emphasizes that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and revision petition by the Collector and the Government of India affirmed the decision of the Superintendent, leading to the merger of orders.
  
  4. Based on the above analysis, the High Court dismisses the application for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the original authority, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raipur. The petitioner is not awarded costs, and the security deposit amount is to be refunded. The judgment concludes by affirming the merger of orders and the legal implications of dismissal of appeals on the decisions of lower authorities.

  ---

• 1962 (9) TMI 2
  
  The petition under Art. 226 challenged the Collector's order confiscating goods for non-payment of excise duty. The court held that the confiscation was justified under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioner's objection was dismissed, and the petition was rejected with no costs.

  ---

• 1962 (9) TMI 1
  

  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