Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Ahsan Waris vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) & ... on 5 March, 2014
"...By applying the ratio as laid down in the above noted reports the
respondent authorities are bound to pay the value of the goods assessed at
the time of seizure and not the value which it fetched from the sale of said
goods after the seizure is declared to be illegal by the CESTAT. The
authorities are thus directed to pay the petitioner the differential amount
within eight weeks from the date of the communication of this order..."
The Customs Act, 1962
Northern Plastics Ltd. (Now Merged With ... vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise on 17 September, 1999
7. The Petitioner contends that it succeeded before the CESTAT, and that
its order has neither been stayed nor set aside by this court or the Supreme
Court, which obliges the respondent to restitute the full value of the imported
articles, less the duty payable, and make payment of the auction amount along
with interest. The respondents' inaction is contrary to the settled position of
law declared by the Supreme Court and the various High Courts. The petitioner
relies on Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise,
1999 (113) ELT 3 (S.C.), Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. v. The Commissioner of
Customs & Central Excise and Anr., 2002 (143) ELT 60 (Del.
The Companies Act, 1956
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs & Central Excise ... on 13 March, 2002
7. The Petitioner contends that it succeeded before the CESTAT, and that
its order has neither been stayed nor set aside by this court or the Supreme
Court, which obliges the respondent to restitute the full value of the imported
articles, less the duty payable, and make payment of the auction amount along
with interest. The respondents' inaction is contrary to the settled position of
law declared by the Supreme Court and the various High Courts. The petitioner
relies on Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise,
1999 (113) ELT 3 (S.C.), Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. v. The Commissioner of
Customs & Central Excise and Anr., 2002 (143) ELT 60 (Del.
Shilps Impex vs Union Of India on 18 January, 2002
In Shilps Impex (supra), the court held that:
Rang Birajgi Sarees(P)Ltd vs Addl.Commissioner Of Customs & Ors on 7 May, 2008
In the case of Rang Birajgi Sarees (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner
of Customs, 2011 (265) ELT 26 (Cal.), the court, with respect to the
aforementioned circular, stated that, "...Circular No. 711/4/2006-Cus (AS)
dated 14.02.2006 the authorities are to be reminded that law interpreted and
laid down is for strict compliance and circulars issued by the authorities
themselves are for adherence in letter and spirit." From the above cited
judgments and the custom circular, it is clear that in any case, the petitioner
W.P.2575/2015 Page 11 of 13
was to be given notice by the customs authority before proceeding for selling
the goods or even for giving permission for selling of goods by the custodian of
the goods as has been alleged by the respondent.
1