Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.34 seconds)
M/S Alpha Chemie Sapthagiri vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 10 May, 2016 cites

East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962

21. The next question is whether the import of the said goods was contrary to law in any manner and whether the said goods are liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act. The only provisions relied upon by the appellants are Clauses (d) and (o) in Section 111 of the Customs Act which we have set out hereinabove. In our opinion none of these clauses are attracted in the present case. Clause (d) contemplates an import which is contrary to any prohibition imposed either by the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force. No such prohibition can be pleaded in this case since on the date of the import the said goods were covered by a valid import licence. The subsequent cancellation of licence is of no relevance nor does it retrospectively render the import illegal. [East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta -1963 (3) S.C.R. 338 at 372.] Clause (o) contemplates confiscation of goods which are exempted from duty subject to a condition, which condition is not observed by the importer. Occasion for taking action under this clause arises only when the condition is not observed within the period prescribed, if any, or where the period is not so prescribed, within a reasonable period. It, therefore, cannot be said that the said goods were liable to be confiscated on the date of their import under Clause (o).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 517 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Apar Private Ltd. And Ors on 22 July, 1999

37. Alternatively, let us consider it from another angle assuming that licence comes to an end upon it is suspension and/or cancellation, in catena of cases, it is laid down that the date of import of goods would be the date on which the Bill of Entry was presented under section 46. This legal position is clear from the decision of the Apex Court as laid down in Union of India v. Apar Ltd. 1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Twentieth Century Finance Corpn.Ltd.& ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2000

It was argued that the endorsement of transferability under provisions of EXIM policy being a statutory requirement to make DEPB scrips transferable, the concept of fraud vitiating everything must then be applicable to such transaction. And that this concept was not applicable to transfer of REP Licenses in the case of Taparia Overseas. It was further argued that the DEPB scrips could not be equated with REP Licenses because in cases like Tapariya and Sneha Sales Corporation, the two were treated as goods for purpose of sales tax laws only and situation contemplated under Sales Tax Act could not in the absence of intendment, be given effect to while applying provisons of the Act or the FT(Development& Regulation) Act. We are unable to agree with this argument. We find that transfer of REP Licenses is also in terms of the Import Export Policy. Further, we may refer to the case of Jindal drugs Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [2004(178) ELT 105(Bom). It was held therein that
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 162 - V N Khare - Full Document

Jugalkishore Saraf vs Raw Cotton Co. Ltd on 7 March, 1955

23. ............ The Apex Court in the case of Jugalkishore v. Raw Cotton Co., A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 376, had occasion to consider the meaning of actionable claim. In this judgment Apex Court ruled that a judgment debt or decree is not an actionable claim because no action is necessary to realise it. It has already been the subject of an action and is secured by the decree. A decree to be passed in future also does not come as such within the definition of an actionable claim. On the same analogy credit made in the D.E.P.B. is a crystalised debt for realisation of which no action at law is necessary. It is a determined amount of liability accepted by the customs. No action at law for its realisation is necessary. In case of transfer of D.E.P.B. credit, it confers upon transferee the immediate right to pay customs duty. This is not an inchoate or incomplete right. It cannot be held to materialise in future because its utilisation is dependant upon transferee importing goods covered by the D.E.P.B. scheme. Nor can D.E.P.B. credit be held to be actionable claim because the customs authorities might not recognise the credit therein and the transferee would have to commence action against them in the Court of law. In our opinion, the transfer of D.E.P.B. credit confers upon the transferee a right which is choate and perfected and exercisable immediately.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 135 - Full Document

M/S Friends Trading Co vs The Union Of India And Others on 2 February, 2011

In the former case the Tribunal relied on the case of Munjal Showa Ltd. and the case of M/s. Friends Trading Co. Vs. Union of India. In the case of Munjal Showa Ltd. the Honble High Court considered and distinguished the cases of East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Sneha Sales Corporation, Taparia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Leader Valves Ltd. The Honble High Court took the view that the judgment in the case of Sneha Sales Corporation and East India Commercial Co. Ltd. dealt with the confiscation and not with the payment of duty. We may examine these contentions of Ld. Spl. Counsel.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1