Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 37 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Mohar Singh on 20 October, 1954
In order to ascertain whether the rights and liabilities under the repealed Ordinance have been put an end to by the Act, 'the line of enquiry would be not whether' in the words of Mukherjee, J. in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, (1955) 1 SCR 893, 'the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities under the repealed Ordinance but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them'."
Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa vs M. A. Tulloch And Co.(And Connected ... on 16 August, 1963
17. Here it would not be out of place to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. H. A. Tulloch & Co., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1284. Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has, in that case, considered this aspect in Para 21 of the judgment in detail. The Supreme Court has considered the principle on which the saving clause in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is based. The Supreme Court inter alia observed as follows :-
Mehendra Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India on 5 December, 1987
16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon two decision of this High Court, one in the case of Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 29(2) GLR page 906 and another in the case of Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1985 (21) ELT 24 (Guj.). In the aforesaid two decisions, the effect of repeal of Rules 10 and 10A of the Rules has been considered, These two decisions are of no help to the petitioners for the following reasons :
Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 4 March, 1985
16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon two decision of this High Court, one in the case of Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 29(2) GLR page 906 and another in the case of Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1985 (21) ELT 24 (Guj.). In the aforesaid two decisions, the effect of repeal of Rules 10 and 10A of the Rules has been considered, These two decisions are of no help to the petitioners for the following reasons :
Government Of India vs Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals Madras ... on 20 July, 1989
7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that no period of limitation was provided in the rule. Therefore, the contention based on the absence of provision with regard to the period of limitation be examined. However, this contention is covered by decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of India v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals, reported in 1989 (42) ELT 515 (SC). In that case Rule 12 of the Medicinal Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, the provisions of which are pari materia with the unamended provisions of Rule 57-I was challenged before the Supreme Court. It was contended that the provisions of Rule 12 was unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court negatived the contention and held that simply because the rule does not prescribe any period for the recovery of duty, the provisions cannot be said to be ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In absence of any provision with regard to the specific period of limitation, reasonable period of limitation has got to be read into it. This is how the Supreme Court has upheld the provisions of Rule 12 of the Medicinal Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. The same principle would be applicable to the provisions of Rule 57-I of the Rules as it stood prior to the amendment. Hence there is no substance in this contention and the same has got to be rejected.