Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 September, 1999
32) We find that the High Court, instead of examining the matter from
the aforesaid angle, has simply gone by the powers of the rule
making authority to make Rules. No doubt, rule making authority
has the power to make Rules but such power has to be exercised
by making the rules which are consistent with the scheme of the
Act and not repugnant to the main provisions of the statute itself.
Such a provision would be valid and 1% F.O.B. value in
determining handling charges etc. could be justified only in those
cases where actual cost is not ascertainable. The High Court
missed the point that Garden Silk Mills Ltd. case was decided by
this Court in the scenario where actual cost was not
ascertainable. That is why we remark that first amendment to the
proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 which was incorporated vide
notification dated 19.12.1989 would meet be justified. However,
the impugned provision clearly fails the test.
Section 12 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 November, 1980
We are fortified
in taking such view by the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Bhim Singhji v. Union of
India, (1981) 1 SCC 166 whereby sub-section
(1) of Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 was struck down as invalid
insofar as it imposed a restriction on transfer of
any urban of urbanisable land with a building or
a portion only of such building which was within
the ceiling area. The provision impugned therein
imposed a restriction on transactions by way of
sale, mortgage, gift or lease of vacant land or
buildings for a period exceeding ten years, or
otherwise for a period of ten years from the date
of the commencement of the Act even though
such vacant land, with or without a building
thereon, fell within the ceiling limits. The
Constitution Bench held (by majority) that such
property will be transferable without the
constraints mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 27 of the said Act. Their Lordships
opined that the light to carry on a business
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution carried with it the right not to carry
on business. It logically followed, as a
necessary corollary, that the right to acquire,
hold and dispose of property guaranteed to
citizen under Article 19(1)(f) carried with it the
right not to hold any property. It is difficult to
appreciate how a citizen could be compelled to
own property against his will though he wanted
to alienate it and the land being within the ceiling
limits was outside the purview of Section 3 of the
Act and that being so the person owning the land
was not governed by any of the provisions of the
Act. Reverting back to the case at hand, the
learned counsel for the State of Himachal
Pradesh has not been able to satisfy us as to
how such a prohibition as is imposed by the
impugned amendment in the Rules helps in
achieving the object of the Act.