Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing The Secretary Of State vs Mask And Co. on 15 March, 1940

Khemka Travels vs Collector Of Customs on 22 July, 1991

In view of the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Glaxo Laboratories v. A.V. Venkateswaran reported in AIR 1959 Bombay 372 and Privy Council in the case of Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. reported in AIR 1940 Privy Council 105, we are of the view that the appeal was maintainable against the order of assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Collector (Appeals) has not applied his mind for decision on merits, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. While deciding the matter, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay shall observe principles of natural justice and shall grant an opportunity of hearing. Since the matter is very old, we shall appreciate if the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay decides the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Anjana Khoriwal vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Paritosh Pant vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Anjali Rathi vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Mamta Talwar vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Nikhil Moghe vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Paliwal vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Sanwar Mal Kedia vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Kapil Kaushik vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Private ... on 1 April, 2019

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. Of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Reliance Industries Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 5 December, 1986

Rest of the section is not relevant for our purpose. I do not see any material difference between the old Section 128 and present Section 129A of the Customs Act, which is identical to the provisions of Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, excepting that old Section 128 incorporated the provisions of the present Section 128 of the Customs Act, which is identical to the provisions of Section 35. The decision of the Calcutta High Court as well as the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. do support the contention of Shri Nariman that there could be an appeal against interlocutory order of the Collector. I have already held that interlocutory order passed by the Collector is not of a routine nature, but it finally determined the fundamental question as to the maintainability of the two important allegations in the show cause notice.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next