Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.01 seconds)
Documents citing Addl. Collector Of Customs, Calcutta & ... vs M/S. Best & Co on 25 March, 1966

Kamath Packaging Ltd. vs Union Of India on 27 February, 1991

This decision again will be of no use to the appellants in view of the notification which was issued under the Customs Act. No doubt in Addl. Collector, Customs v. Best & Co. in paragraphs 10 and 11 it was observed that it was only possible for the Customs authority to prosecute and could not confiscate and such a power is not enlarged even after the amendment. But that can have no bearing since the Notification No. 116/88 dated 30th March, 1988 come to be issued under Section 25 which certainly attracts the provisions under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Thalayar Rubber Industries Ltd. And ... on 6 April, 1981

Collector of Customs v. Best and Co., AIR 1966 SC 1713 and Gaffoor v. Ayeska Begham (C. A. No. 2406 of 1969). There can be little doubt that the decision is directly in favour of the revision petitioners in these cases. But we hesitate to rest our decision on this ground as there is a trend of rulings of the Supreme Court which has been followed by a number of decisions of this court, holding that the Limitation Act is applicable only to courts and not to tribunals.
Kerala High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M.A. Rangaswami And Ors. vs Amin Chand Payarelal Firm, Bombay on 9 March, 1978

"Even as far as these contentions of Mr. Shah are concerned, we are of the view that the same must also be negatived in view of the decision in Best & Co.'s case . We may point out that even in that case Condition No. 1 of the licence which we have set out clearly provided that the licence granted was having quantity and value as the limiting factors and was not valid for clearance if the actual value of any item exceeded the C. I. F. value indicated in the licence by more than 5%. The ground on which the order of confiscation was sought to be supported was that the correct C. I. F. value exceeded the sum of Rs. 45,000/- by more than 5%. Yet this was regarded as a breach of a condition of the licence. If the provision in the licence setting out the scope of the licence from the point of view of the value of the goods permitted to be imported is regarded as a condition of the licence, we fail to see why a provision to the effect that the licence would be effective for a particular period should not be regarded in the same manner. The licence may be limited as regards the period of utilisation or as regards the nature of the goods permitted to be imported thereunder or as far as the monetary value of the goods is concerned. In view of the decision in the case of Best & Co., it would be difficult to contend that any of these terms could be regarded as other than conditions. It is true that in that case this particular provision was called Condition No. 1. That, however, is a mere nomenclature or description given to the term or provision and cannot make any difference to the result. If such a term was really not a condition, merely having called it a condition could make no difference. In fact, the term there specifically provided that the licence could not be valid if the actual value exceeded the C. I. F. value indicated in the licence by more than 5%, and yet it was held that the breach of this provision amounted in law to a mere breach of a condition. These submissions of Mr. Shah on the footing that there was no import at all under a valid licence, must also be rejected."
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bangeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Dhanrajmal Govindram And Ors. on 4 October, 1966

16. The first part of the above argument was sought to be met on behalf of the petitioning creditor by placing reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Addl. Collector of Customs v. Best and Co., , in which B. C. Mitra J. (H. K. Bose C. J. agreeing with him) held that under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1963 the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order is no doubt to be excluded but such exclusion can be allowed if and only if a copy of the same was annexed to the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court But, if in fact, the petition could be moved and was moved without a copy of the order, there was no excuse for the delay in moving the application beyond the period of limitation. Now, if this judgment had been a correct judgment, what was said about an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court would have been equally true of a memorandum of appeal Unfortunately, for the petitioning creditor, this judgment stands reversed by the Supreme Court In Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1966. Addl. Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. M/s. Best and Co.. un-reported= (since reported in) in which Shelat J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, observed:
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sainaba Umma vs Moideenkutty on 11 April, 2003

3. We are of the view there would not be any quarrel regarding the proposition laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court or by the Apex Court in Best & Co.'s decision. But in cases where right to file appeal has been taken away by a statutory amendment with effect from 1.7.2002 neither Section 5 or Section 12 of the Limitation Act would enable the Court to entertain such appeals. By doing so court would be doing violence to the statute. Sections 5 and 12(2) of the Act would apply only in those cases where right to appeal survives. Further Section 100A has employed a non obstante clause. A non obstante clause is appended to a section with a view to give the enacting part of the Section an overriding effect over the Acts or the instruments having the force of law mentioned in the non obstante clause. We are of the view non obstante clause contained in Section 100A would take away the effect of Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 and the provisions contained under Section 12(2) and 12(3) of the Limitation Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next