Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.98 seconds)
Max Overseas vs Commissioner Of Customs, Marmagoa on 23 December, 2009 cites

Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. ... vs Union Of India And Another on 6 December, 1983

3. Shri. S.N. Kantawalla, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant submitted that prior to this, consignments of similar / identical goods have been unconditionally assessed and released by the Goa Customs House. He further submitted that in the case of Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. vs. Union of India  1984 (17) ELT 50 (Bom.), it was held that where previous consignments were released by the Customs House for several years and it was a long standing practice of the Customs House to release similar goods, the Customs authorities could not say that the import was in contravention of Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the show cause notice is completely vague and does not disclose any material on the basis of which the show cause was issued.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Vadodra vs M/S. Dhiren Chemical Industries on 12 December, 2001

The Honble Apex Court in the case of Collector vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries  2002 (143) ELT 19 (SC) has further clearly laid down that the Boards instructions have to be followed in letter and spirit. He further submitted that the Commissioner had traveled beyond the show cause notice and relying on adjudication order of Tuticorin Customs House, which was not supplied to the appellant, and passed the order of confiscation. He further submitted that absolute confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Act is against the mandate of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the Commissioner disregarded the DGFT opinion. He further submitted that the appellant obtained the information under RTI Act and as per the information received under RTI, the Custom House Tuticorin mentioned that import of the item in question is covered under Rule 132, Schedule D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. He further submitted that the evidence in the form of clarifications issued by DGFT, Custom House, Faridabad clearly proves that the appellants goods are covered under Rule 132 and describes cosmetics allows clearance at any port.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 203 - Full Document
1   2 Next