|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 126 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FULL BENCH)
Valuation - Cost of packing to be excluded when packing material supplied by the customers - Manufacture
-
1981 (9) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Seizure - Voluntary disclosure - Gold confiscated before declaration - Immunity from prosecution
-
1981 (9) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Laches - Writ jurisdiction - Article 226 - Scope ... ... ... ... ..... t only it was lodged one year after the orders, but it was taken for admission five years thereafter. It is now well-settled that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is available provided the litigant takes step, expeditiously and is not guilty of laches. In the present case, it is obvious that the petitioners were not serious about prosecuting this remedy probably because the factory itself was closed down from the year 1977 onwards. In these circumstances, in my judgment, the preliminary objection of Shri Dhanuka that no relief should be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be upheld. As I am disposing of the petition on the preliminary objection, it is not necessary to consider the submission of Shri Dhanuka that even on merits, the impugned order is correct. 5. Accordingly, the petition fails and the rule is discharged but as the factory of the petitioners is already closed in the year 1977, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 123 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVIEW CASE)
Review - Revisional Order - Binding effect of - Printed cartons - Products of packaging industry
-
1981 (9) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Confiscation and penalty - Car with contraband goods - Validity - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... number of contraband articles, as mentioned in the panchanama, copy of which is annexed as Exp. A, must be pretty heavy and any person familiar with the surroundings of the Customs area and the dock area would have been put on guard to enquire as to what the contents are. Apart from this circumstance, the petitioner had kept two cameras and projector also in the dicky of the car and that is indicative of the feet that the petitioner was fully conscious of the material which he was carrying for his friend. In these circumstances, the finding of the three authorities below that the petitioner had full knowledge of the articles which he was carrying in the boot of his car cannot be stated to be without any basis. In my judgment, the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below is in accordance with evidence on record and requires no interference in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Accordingly, the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 121 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of duty paid and collected under the mistake of law - Time-limit is three years ... ... ... ... ..... ue before me. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore - AIR S.C. 813 1978 E.L.T. (J 154), the impracticability of refunding the excise duty to the ultimate consumers or purchasers shall not be put against to impede the refund of excise duty collected under a mistake of law, to the petitioner, the petitioner can hold the amount refunded in trust for the ultimate consumers and the petitioner can be made liable as a trustee to refund the duty pro rata to the actual consumers as and when they make their claims. 25. Taking into consideration all the above factors, this writ petition is allowed, directing the refund of the amount as prayed for within three months from today. The petitioner shall keep the amount refunded in trust for the actual consumers or purchasers and it shall be refunded pro rata to the actual consumers or purchasers as and when claims are made by them with interest. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.
-
1981 (9) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Valuation - Exemption - Non-passing of the benefit to costomer - Determination of assessable value
-
1981 (9) TMI 119 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Valuation - Determination of assessable value- ... ... ... ... ..... M/s. Hedge and Golay and making suitable allowances for elements which should be deducted from their sale price before arriving at the assessable value or it could take the form of taking the sale price at which comparable goods are sold or are capable of being sold at the time and place of removal. Govt. further consider that though this is a case which has to be decided in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood before its amendment on 1-10-1975, yet the lower authorities could be guided by the approach of the Valuation Rules framed with reference to amended Section 4(1)(b) of the said Act, as the concept of value broadly remains unaffected even after the amendment of Section 4(b) ibid. 17. With the aforesaid observations, Government set aside the impugned order-in-appeal with the directions that the matter should be disposed of de novo by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise after due compliance with the principles of natural justice.
-
1981 (9) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Exemption - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... n 15 of the Act the Customs Authorities have to consider what is the rate of duty only after taking into consideration the question whether on the date of importation of the goods the notification of exemption was applicable or not. I am in total agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and in my judgment there is no distinction between the case of total exemption and partial exemption and it is not permissible to by-pass the dictum of the Division Bench on that count. In my judgment, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of the case and the demand notice and the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector is totally illegal and unjust. In these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and the rule is made obsolute in terms of prayer (b) of paragraph 23 of the petition. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Short-landed cargo - Refund of duty illegally collected ... ... ... ... ..... tment to claim that the assessment was made according to the Bill of Entry and even though the short-landing certificate was issued, the Department would close their eyes to the reality and proceed on the assumption that what was stated in the Bill of Entry was justification for the assessment of duty. The submission of Shri Lokur that assessment was in accordance with law deserves to be repelled. 9. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on October 20, 1976, by Appellate Collector of Customs on January 18, 1977 and by the Government of India on June 21, 1977/September 1, 1977 are set aside and the refund application filed by the petitioners is remitted back to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, for disposal on merits. The Assistant Collector must pass the requisite order within a period of two months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Evidence - Delayed submission - Valuation - Addition for margin of profit - Demand - Relevant date
-
1981 (9) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Exemption - Withdrawal of exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... ate of clearance of the goods from the warehouse and the advantage of partial exemption could not be claimed merely on the ground that the goods entered the barrier on the date when the exemption notification was in existence. The Division Bench held that if the goods were totally exempted on the date of its entry, within the custom s barrier, then duty cannot be recovered merely because such total exemption was withdrawn on the date of the clearance, but in cases where there is only partial exemption available on the date of entry in the custom s barrier, then withdrawal of such partial exemption would make the importer liable to pay the normal duty, if on the date of clearance of the goods exemption stands withdrawn. In view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench, the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief in this petition. 6. Accordingly, the petition fails and the rule is discharged, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Short-landed goods-Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal as it was filed beyond period of limitation. In my judgment, the submission is totally misconceived. If there w as no short landing of goods, then the Assistant Collector of Customs had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty and the orders are without any jurisdiction. The Appellate Collector was clearly in error in taking a technical view and dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. The orders under challenge, in these circumstances, cannot be sustained and the petition must succeed. 7. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector on February 11, 1976 and that by the Appellate Collector on October 30, 1976 and by the Revisional authority dated February 5, 1977 are set aside. As the petitioners have already paid the amount of penalty, the respondents are bound to refund the same. The respondents shall refund the amount within a period of four weeks from today. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition.
-
1981 (9) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Private bonded warehouse - Natural justice - Opportunity of being heard - Criteria for ... ... ... ... ..... r to cancel the licence by giving one month s notice in writing to the licensee without affording him an opportunity of being heard. It is well-settled that the principles of natural justice cannot travel into the terrain where the Legislature specifically debarred the application of the said principles of natural Justice. Therefore, the challenge of arbitrariness of the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 58 is without any merit. In the present case, since the public warehousing facility has been made available for the goods lying in the private warehouses of the petitioner, therefore, the Assistant Collector, keeping in view the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act, rightly pointed out to the petitioner in advance that the licence of the petitioner will not be renewed. No fault can be found in this order. 4. No other point has been urged. 5. For the reasons recorded, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Yarn - Sizing of yarn is not manufacture - Liability to duty - Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... tion or other manufacture. Now, this underlined portion is clearly an obiter dicta. It also does not flow or follow logically from the main judgment or even from the several observations preceding the same and which observations, as indicated, are in consistent with the contention of the respondents herein. In the circumstances, it would not be possible to successfully, invoke, and apply the same to instant two petitions. 6. In the result, these petitions are allowed. Rule in each of these petitions is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d) of the respective petitions. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are directed to bear their own respective costs. 7. It is also directed that the Bank guarantee furnished by the respective petitioners in these two petitions pursuant to directions given by this Court on interim orders shall stand discharged after a period of four weeks from today and the same shall be returned to the respective petitioners.
-
1981 (9) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Brand name - Domestic electric appliances - Liability to duty ... ... ... ... ..... this submission. The material on record is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioners were manufacturing the electric appliances for the company. The reasons assigned by the Assistant Collector to deny the advantage of the exemption notifications are totally incorrect and the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the impugned order dated April 28, 1978 annexed as Excise Customs to the petition is quashed. Shri Bhatt submits that in pursuance of the order, the petitioners have paid the duty under protest and have filed refund applications during the pendency of the petition. The Department shall dispose of the refund application within a period of two months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order stands discharged. The discharged Bank guarantee to be returned to the petitioners.
-
1981 (9) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Plastic sheets - Words and phrases - Meaning of 'including' - Review ... ... ... ... ..... the Excise authorities or before this Court to establish that in commercial parlance corrugated roofings is not known as plastic sheets. In absence of any material produced on behalf of the petitioners, it is impossible to hold that the orders passed by the Government in exercise of the powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excise Act suffer from any infirmity. In my judgment, the order is proper and in accordance with the correct reading of Item No. 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and the exemption notification and, therefore, the order under challenge requires no interference. 10. Accordingly, the petition fails and the Rule is discharged, with costs. It is made clear that the contention of the petitioners that the show cause notice issued by the Department pursuant to the order passed by the Government is barred by law of limitation is not considered in this petition and it is open for the petitioners to raise any such contentions before the concerned authorities.
-
1981 (9) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Brand name - Jurisdiction - Writ jurisdiction - Validity ... ... ... ... ..... ice would be restricted to the exercise of powers for recovery of escaped duty, the return mentions something more. The respondents have claimed that they are entitled to rely upon the explanation to the Notification which has been struck down by the Patna High Court. In face of this return, it is not possible to accept the submission of Shri Dhanuka that the proceedings should be directed to proceed in respect of inquiry for escapement of duty. In these circumstances the impugned show cause notice is required to be struck down. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and the Rule is made absolute and the show cause notice dated October 20, 1977, being Exh. G and show cause notice dated April 4, 1978, being Exh. I to the petition, are struck down. It is not necessary to give relief in respect of quashing of Explanation to Notification dated May 9, 1977 as the said explanation has already ben struck down. 9. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Board's Directions invalid - Strictures - Quasi-judicial authorities - Guidelines for - Appeal
-
1981 (9) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Valuation - Cylinders ... ... ... ... ..... in fact sold without fitting of valves. The revisional authority has proceeded to include the value of the valves while assessing the value of the cylinders only on the ground that the valves are essential for the functioning of the gas cylinders. Even assuming that is so, it is difficult to appreciate how the value of the valves can be included while determining the assessable value of the cylinder. The necessity of valves for the use of cylinders is no ground to include the value of the valves in the assessable value of the cylinders. In my judgment, the revisional authority is clearly in error in disturbing the order passed by the Appellate Collector and the impugned order requires to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. The Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order stands discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
............
|
