Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 March, 2002

Rare Crafts Overseas vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 12 August, 2010

6. Both the Bombay Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Popular Dyechem [1987 (28) E.L.T. 63] and the Delhi Court judgment in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others [1982 (10) E.L.T. 43], on their peculiar facts, are good for taking notice of the order under Section 47 of the Act and saying accordingly that unless that order was set aside, no proceeding for confiscation should have been taken. It is difficult, however, to accept this as a law, as once there is a clearance under Section 47 and/or Section 51 of the Act is ordered, unless that order is set aside, the proper officer cannot act on his reasonable belief under Sections 110, 111 or 113 of the Act.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S Ramesh Babu vs Chennai( Port Import) on 21 August, 2025

(emphasis added) The Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [1982 (10) E.L.T. 43] held that an action to confiscate goods does not depend on clearance of the goods for home consumption or export, but on conditions enumerated under Sec. 111 of the Act. Hence since the goods, which were not freely importable and were restricted by conditions for import, were found mis-declared as per their description and classification, knowingly or un-knowingly, they have been correctly confiscated for a statutory breach / strict liability offence. 6.10 Further confiscation of goods is an action in rem while penalty against a person is a proceeding in personam. Action against the goods is independent of the action against an importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vital Therapeutics Pvt Ltd vs Chennai( Port Import) on 21 August, 2025

(emphasis added) The Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [1982 (10) E.L.T. 43] held that an action to confiscate goods does not depend on clearance of the goods for home consumption or export, but on conditions enumerated under Sec. 111 of the Act. Hence since the goods, which were not freely importable and were restricted by conditions for import, were found mis-declared as per their description and classification, knowingly or un-knowingly, they have been correctly confiscated for a statutory breach / strict liability offence. 6.10 Further confiscation of goods is an action in rem while penalty against a person is a proceeding in personam. Action against the goods is independent of the action against an importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S Venugopal Setty vs Chennai( Port Import) on 21 August, 2025

(emphasis added) The Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [1982 (10) E.L.T. 43] held that an action to confiscate goods does not depend on clearance of the goods for home consumption or export, but on conditions enumerated under Sec. 111 of the Act. Hence since the goods, which were not freely importable and were restricted by conditions for import, were found mis-declared as per their description and classification, knowingly or un-knowingly, they have been correctly confiscated for a statutory breach / strict liability offence. 6.10 Further confiscation of goods is an action in rem while penalty against a person is a proceeding in personam. Action against the goods is independent of the action against an importer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1