Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)M/S Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs The Collector Of Customs, Bombay & Anr on 7 July, 1997
The learned Senior Counsel also relied on
the decision in the case of Sun Export Corporation Vs.
Collector of Customs 1989 (42) ELT 308,
308 wherein it is
observed that in a tier system, decisions of higher
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:41:01 :::
:10:
authorities are binding on lower authorities and
quasi-judicial tribunals are also bound by this
discipline.
Hirday Narain vs Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly on 21 July, 1970
a. In the case of Hirday Narain Vs. IT
Officer Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33,
33 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that "we are unable to
hold that because a revision application could
have been moved for an order correcting the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:41:01 :::
:11:
order of the Income Tax Officer under Section
35 but was not moved, the High Court would be
justified in dismissing as not maintainable
the Petition, which was entertained and heard
on merits".
Procter & Gamble India Limited And Anr. vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 September, 1993
b. In the case of Proctor & Gamble India
Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay 2004 (1) Mh.L.J.406,
Mh.L.J.406 this Court has
held that "........it is well settled that
once the Petitions are admitted for final
hearing, without any reservation of right in
favour
maintainability
of the
of
Respondents
the Petitions
to raise
on
plea
account
of non
of
any such alternative remedy being available to
the Petitioners, the Respondents cannot be
allowed to non-suit the Petitioners, at the
final stage, merely on such a technical plea
and more particularly when the Petitioners
have a good case on merits. Applying the same
rule to the case in hand, the objection
relating to the availability of alternative
remedy is rejected."
Century Spining And Manufacturing Co. vs Union Of India on 1 January, 1800
c. In a Division Bench Judgment of this Court
in the case of Century Spinning & Manufacturing
Vs. Union of India 1993 (67) ELT 224, it is
observed that "at this stage of final hearing
Shri.R.V.Desai, the learned Counsel for the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:41:01 :::
:12:
Department urged that since thee is an
alternate statutory remedy available to the
Petitioner of preferring an Appeal to the
Tribunal, this Writ Petition should not be
entertained by this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. This submission is
merely to be stated to be rejected for the
simple reason that rule was issued after
hearing both the parties in the year 1979 and
it is too late in the day at the stage of
final hearing of the Petition in the year 1992
to take a preliminary objection for the
exercise
Article
ig of
226
our extra
of
ordinary
the
powers under
Constitution.
M.R.F. Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 3 July, 1985
d. In another decision of this Court in the
case of MRF Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1985
(22) ELT 5 (Bom),
(Bom) this Court has held that
".......this Writ Petition was admitted after
hearing the Respondents on 14th December,1983.
Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai vs M/S. Toyo Engineering India Limited on 31 August, 2006
15. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, specially in the light of the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner
of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:41:01 :::
:14:
Ltd.(Supra),
Ltd.(Supra) wherein it is clearly mentioned that the
Petitioner could avail duty drawback under Section 74
in respect of the duty which they would have to pay on
the concessional basis with regard to the goods which
were imported into the country on re-export basis are
fully entitled to the benefit of concessional duty
under Notification No.269/76.