Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Madhusudan Gordhandas And Co. vs Collector Of Customs on 20 February, 1987

Commissioner Of Customs (Air) vs M/S.Wipro Ltd on 4 April, 2019

In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decisions in the case of Merck Spares v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi reported in 1983 ELT 1261; Shama Engine Valves Ltd. Bombay vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1984 (18) ELT 533; and Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (29) ELT 904 wherein it was held that, in imposing penalty, requisite mens rea has to be established.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Union Of India vs Association Of Unified Telecom Service ... on 24 October, 2019

61. We refer in this connection to the decision in Merck Spares v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi, (1983) 13 ELT 1261 (CEGAT), Shama Engine Valves Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, (1984) 13 ELT 533 (CEGAT), Bombay and Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1987) 29 ELT 904, wherein it has been held that in imposing penalty the requisite mens rea has to be established.
Supreme Court of India Cites 116 - Cited by 86 - A Mishra - Full Document

Kensigton Investment Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 11 October, 2002

"We refer in this connection the decision of Merck Spares v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi, 1983 ELT 1261, Shama Engine Valves Ltd.., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1984) 18 ELT 533 and Madhusudhan Gordhandas & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1987) 29 ELT 904, wherein it has been held that in imposing penalty the requisite mens rea has to be established.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rakesh Agrawal vs Securities Exchange Board Of India on 1 November, 2003

96. This principle has been followed in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs [1990 (47) E.L.T. 161(SC)], Merck Spares v. Collector of Excise & Customs, [1983 ELT 1261], New Delhi, Shama Engine Values Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (18) ELT 533] and Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1987 (29) ELT 904]. There is in fact no such findings whatsoever on this point by the investigating officer or in the impugned order.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Agrawal vs Securities Exchange Board Of India on 3 November, 2003

78. This principle has been followed in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs [1990 (47) E.L.T. 161(SC)], Merck Spares v. Collector of Excise & Customs, [1983 ELT 1261], New Delhi, Shama Engine Values Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (18) ELT 533] and Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1987 (29) ELT 904]. There is in fact no such findings whatsoever on this point by the investigating officer or in the impugned order. The investors have not incurred any loss by the said transactions.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ram Kirpal vs Union Of India on 16 March, 1998

In the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas and Company (supra), the Tribunal has taken the view that the Tribunal is not empowered to review its own order as the power of review is not specifically conferred by the statute. What is emphasised by the Tribunal is that the Tribunal has merely power to clarify its earlier order, but while exercising its power, the Tribunal cannot rectify the errors apparent from the record.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 15 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Akbar Badrudin Jiwani vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 14 February, 1990

We refer in this connection the decision in Merck Spares v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi, [1983] ELT 1261; Shama Engine Valves Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay,[1984] 18 ELT 533 and Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, [1987] 29 ELT 904 wherein it has been held that in imposing penalty the requi- site mens rea has to be established.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 123 - B C Ray - Full Document

M/S. Fast Forward Express Courier vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 24 June, 2013

59. We refer, in this connection, the decision in Merck Spares v. Collector of Central Excise of Customs, New Delhi, Sharma Engine Valves Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay wherein it has been held that in imposing penalty the requisite mens rea has to be established.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next