Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.02 seconds)Section 46 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 12 January, 1981
(1) Madras Rubber Factory v. Collector of Customs, Madras -1984 (18) E.L.T 390.
Food Corporation Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 20 February, 1984
(2) Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs Madras - 1984 (15) E.L.T 417.
Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. as reported in 1990 (27) ECC (Bom) 203 (Para 23 & 37 refer), the Bombay High Court has held while examining Section 46 of the Customs Act that "a careful reading of Section 46 shows that the essence of provision is the making of the entry of the imported goods, the manner in which the entry is made being merely a question of procedure. The presentation of the bill of entry in the prescribed form is thus a pure procedural aspect of the making of the entry of the imported goods, a matter of form. For these reasons, the intention of the Legislature appears clear and therefore, on the strength of the above mentioned rulings of the Supreme Court it follows that Section 46 is merely directory and not mandatory". Therefore Collector's finding that the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963 cover only if they are covered by one invoice and one bill of entry is not a correct reading of the Rules. As the matter has not been considered on merit, the same requires to be reconsidered by the original authority with regard to the applicability of the Rules to the imported items.
Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Collector Of Customs on 22 December, 1987
(3) Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Customs Calcutta 1988 (34) E.L.T 248.
1