Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing The Collector, Central Excise, ... vs L. Kashi Nath Jewellers on 9 December, 1971

Popular Jewellers vs Collector Of Central Excise on 19 April, 1990

5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and the learned SDR. In our view the issue will have to be decided by ascertaining whether the Tribunal had omitted to consider submissions made before it in regard to the confiscability or otherwise of the two quantities of gold ornaments said to have been received from dealers at Bangalore and Amritsar. The applicants say that in respect of confiscation of this quantity of gold they had contended consistently before the Collector during the adjudication proceedings, as well as before the Tribunal, that the ratio contained in Para 18 of the Allahabad High Court in L. Kashinath Jewellers case would apply, and in the light thereof where it was merely a case of non-accounting the gold by a dealer of ornaments which were covered by a valid voucher there could be no seizure of the gold or its confiscation. On a perusal of the appeal filed before the Tribunal we find that the appellants have submitted ground No. 4 as follows:-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deokinandan Bagaria vs Collector Of Customs on 8 February, 1985

The learned advocate has stated that the revenue has not disclosed the reasons of their belief. He has referred to the provisions of Section 110 and Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has pleaded that as per provisions of Section 110, the proper officer should have reason to believe that the goods are smuggled ones and the seizure should be under reasonable belief and the seizure should be done under the Customs Act. He has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad v. L. Kashi Nath, Jewellers reported in AIR 1972, Allahabad 231. He has pleaded that it was a case under the Gold (Control) Act where the Hon'ble Court had held that:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L. Kashi Nath Seth vs Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad ... on 22 November, 1978

3. Therefore, in the special appeal as originally filed, the only grievance which could be raised, was against the view of the learned single Judge that Sections 71 and 73 of the Act are not unconstitutional. However, by an application presented on 9th Aug., 1977 (Civil Misc. Application No. 5859 of 1977) before the Special Appeal Bench, the petitioner-appellant was allowed by order dated 21st Dec., 1977, to amend the writ petition and to add certain new grounds in the special appeal. The supplementary affidavit filed along with the application, is the only surviving basis on which relief in now claimed by the petitioner-appellant. It has been stated therein that there was a search of the petitioner-appellant's business premises at 20, Jhandawala Park, Lucknow on April 27, 1971; that certain articles of gold were seized at that search; that the petitioner-appellant had challenged the search and seizure by a Writ Petition No. 2939 of 1971; that all the articles seized from the first floor of the petitioner-appellant's business premises, except some ornaments were returned as they were found to be accounted for in its books of account; that the articles so returned were sold by the petitioner-appellant in due course of business and were, therefore, no longer available for being proceeded against; that the said writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 10th Aug. 1971 reported as L. Kashi Nath v. Collector Central Excise in AIR 1972 All 16; that the respondents appealed from that judgment, that was Special Appeal No. 447 of 1971 and was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated December 9, 1971 which is reported as Collector Central Excise v. L. Kashi Nath Jewellers in AIR 1972 All 231; that the writ petition giving rise to the present special appeal was filed during the pendency of that special appeal; that it was held by this Court in that special appeal that there was no breach of either Section 55 of the Act or of any rules and only penalty could be levied but no confiscation could be ordered; that the judgment in the earlier writ petition operates as res judicata in the present proceedings; that however, the respondent Collector, Central Excise, did not return tha remaining gold ornaments and continued to proceed with the adjudication proceedings on the basis of a show cause notice issued by him; that the petitioner-appellant was entitled to the return of the remaining ornaments seized from the ground floor and the second floor of its business premises, but its applications for the same did not bear any fruit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Smt. Mahadevi Lohariwalla vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 19 October, 1979

Thus, on the basis of the determinations as aforesaid and also on the basis of the determinations in the case of The Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad and Ors. v. L. Kashinath Jewellers - , it was contended by Mr. Ghosh that the officer concerned in this case, had no reasonable belief in terms of the requirements of Section 110 of the Customs Act and such belief, if any was not made known to the court as there is no affidavit by the officer concerned and since there is no affidavit disclosing how such belief was formed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Innovation, Secunderabad And Anr. vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs And ... on 7 June, 1982

23. Mr. V. R. Reddy next relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Collector, Central Excise v. L.K.N. Jewellers, the facts of which case, according to the learned counsel bear a close approximation to the facts of the present case. It must, however, be remembered that, that was a case where the seizure was challenged by way of a writ petition. It was not a case where the matter came up before the Court after adjudication. The matter arose under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, Section 66 whereof empowered any Gold Control Officer, if he has reason to believe that in respect of gold any provision of the said Act has been, or being, or is attempted to be contravened to seize such gold along with the package, covering or receptable etc., in which the gold is found. The Court observed that the existence of a reasonable belief is a condition precedent for exercise of the power of seizure and that, this power cannot be allowed to be used indiscriminately with a view to fishing out material to form a belief and to justify the seizure on the basis of the material so discovered. There can be little quarrel with the above preposition. But, as I have held hereinbefore, the seizure in this case was preceded by a reasonable belief. Therefore there is no question of following the principle of the said decision and directing the return of the seized goods. Moreover, in this case, the adjudication proceedings have also been concluded.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs Controller Of Aluminium And Ors. on 17 December, 1975

(32) A decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court under the Gold Control Order, 1968 in relation to the expression " reason to believe" in The Collector, Central Excise v. L. Kashi Nath Jewellers confirming a decision of the single Judge of the same Court (reported in the same volume at p. 16) was also cited in support of the proposition that excessive seizure would render the entire seizure invalid in the view that the transaction is one and indivisible. Gopi Nath. J., speaking for the Division Bench, explained how this power of scizure had to be exercised strictly under authority of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next