Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Kaptan'S Enterprises And Anr. vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1985

Collector Of Customs vs Mansingka Brothers on 26 November, 1986

The ratio of this decision was relied upon by the appellants to support their contention that the judgment of Delhi High Court in Kaptan's case was binding on the Tribunal. The ratio is applicable to the present case. The contention of Shri Ghosh is not tenable. Shri Ghosh has also broadly stated that the plethora of past decisions cited by the appellants cannot be applied to the present cases as the facts are different, but he has not specifically argued to bring out the distinguishing features of these cases, except the very few mentioned above in this paragraph, and has not also stated why the ratio laid down therein should not be followed in the present cases, although it was open to him to do so. We cannot brush aside the ratio laid flown in the various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts simply on the basis of a vague statement that the facts are different.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 78 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 14 February, 1990

In support of his argument he has relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kaptan's Enterprises and Anr. v. Union of India. He has argued that in view of the above legal position, the I.T.C. order dated 3.4.81 continued to be in force even after issue of the Public Notice dated 5.6.81. He has argued that the importers could import beef tallow under OGL. He has also argued that the licence is governed by the Policy during which it is issued. In this case, the licence dated 29.6.81 against which the goods were sought to be cleared was issued during the Policy period 1981-82. In support of his argument he has cited a few decisions which have been discussed in the order written by Brother Shri Harish Chander, Member (Judl.) and concurred by Shri I.J. Rao, Member (Technical).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 53 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. vs Union Of India on 5 April, 1995

12. The Division Bench of this Court in Kaptan's Enterprises v. Union of India, , has also clearly upheld the same. The facts as will be evident seem to have some semblance with the facts of the present case. It is highlighted that any change in Policy in public interest should have prospective effect and without effecting any previously acquired right. Paragraph 14 of this judgment may be reproduced as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 November, 1994

5. The challenge to the public notice 222 dated 11.11. 1983 by the appellants in the High Court was based mainly on the doctrine of promissory estoppel which has been rejected by the High Court. A similar challenge on the ground of promissory estoppel has been rejected by this Court in Kanishka Trading & Anr. etc. v. Union of India & Anr. (C. A. Nos. 4 3 3 6 etc. of 1994 decided on 19.10.1994) JT 1994 (7) SC 362. Accordingly, decision of the Delhi High Court in Kaptan's Enterprises and Another v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Delhi 221 cannot furnish any support to the appellants in the present case. Shri Harish Salve, learned counsel for the appellants made no attempt to support the appellants' case on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This point does not, therefore, require any further consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 40 - J S Verma - Full Document

Collector Of Customs vs Priyanka Overseas (P) Ltd. on 17 May, 1988

51. The decision in the case of Kaptan 's Enterprises and Anr. v. Union of India, , was relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. In that case, the petitioner entered into a firm contract for import of Stearin Fatty Acid with a Foreign Company under the assumption that he could import the item under OGL1/83. In the meanwhile, on 11.11.83, the Government of India issued a public notice bearing No. 47 ITC (PN)/83. The effect of this public notice was that, except for goods already shipped before 11.11.1983, no commodity of this description could be imported into India except through the STC. The public notice did not ban the import of fatty acids and oils even after its date, it only "Canalised" the imports through the STC. In that case, it was held by the Delhi High Court that Stearin Fatty Acid could have been imported by the petitioner under OGL 1/83 as it stood before the public notice dated 11.11.1983. In this context, the Delhi High Court stated that it could not express in that writ petition any conclusion as to whether the petitioner-firm had or had not entered into a firm contract for the import of the goods-in-question before the date of the second public notice, viz., 11.11.83, and that this was a question which had to be determined by the appropriate authorities and not by the Delhi High Court. The decision on the writ petition proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner's allegation were correct, leaving it open to the respondents to examine the documents as and when they were presented to them and arrive at their own findings. In other words, for the purpose of the writ petition, the Delhi High Court assumed, but did not decide, that the petitioner had entered into a firm contract for import of the goods-in-question before 11.11.1983. The second clarification to be given pertained to the commodity that was to be imported by the petitioner. The Delhi High Court stated that the goods sought to be imported would be subject to inspection by the respondents who would be entitled to satisfy themselves whether they corresponded to the description of goods contained in the contract on which the writ petition was based and whether, if not, the petitioner-firm could be permitted to import, under OGL, the actual goods sought to be imported.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. vs Union Of India on 5 April, 1995

12. The Division Bench of this Court in Kaptan's Enterprises and Another v. Union of India - has also clearly upheld the same. The facts as will be evident seem to have some semblance with the facts of the present case. It is highlighted that any change in Policy in public interest should have prospective effect and without effecting any previously acquired right. Paragraph 14 of this judgment may be reproduced as follows :
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next