Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
Bipin M. Pujara vs Commissioner Of Customs on 19 November, 1998 cites

Collector Of Central Excise vs New Tobacco Co. Ltd. on 17 December, 1997

10. The question involved in this application again came up for consideration before the apex Court in Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. wherein Nanavati, J., upon taking into consideration various earlier decisions, inter alia, quoted the following passage with the approval from the decision of the apex Court in Harla v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1952 SCR 110 which is as follows :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 26 August, 1996

5. Mr. Chowdhury, on the other hand, submits that the assessing officer had to prepare the bill in view of the fact that the customs duty payable on the consignment aforementioned by the petitioner was to be levied at the rate prevalent on date viz., in terms of the Gazette Notification dated September 11, 1996. The learned counsel submits that publication of the Gazette would mean the date on which the Gazette is printed and in support of his aforementioned contention reliance has been placed in the case of I.T.C. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and in the case of Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India .
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - J S Verma - Full Document

M/S. Pankaj Jain Agencies vs Union Of India And Other on 14 July, 1994

5. Mr. Chowdhury, on the other hand, submits that the assessing officer had to prepare the bill in view of the fact that the customs duty payable on the consignment aforementioned by the petitioner was to be levied at the rate prevalent on date viz., in terms of the Gazette Notification dated September 11, 1996. The learned counsel submits that publication of the Gazette would mean the date on which the Gazette is printed and in support of his aforementioned contention reliance has been placed in the case of I.T.C. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and in the case of Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India .
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 81 - Full Document

B.K. Srinivasan & Another Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 January, 1987

In B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka the apex Court while considering the question from which date the subordinate legislation comes into force held that "15. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the official gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may be sufficient".
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 169 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951

14. In the aforementioned background I may now consider the decision of the apex Court relied on by Mr. Choudhury in Pankaj Jain Agencies . It does not appear that any question was raised, in that case as regards the date of publication. It appears that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties were remiss in bringing to the court's notice that the date of printing of the notification need not necessarily be the date of publication thereof. In fact in that case there was nothing to show as was the case in B.K. Srinivasan that the actual date when the Gazette notification was made available to the public for sale was published was other than the date when it was printed. It is only in that situation the apex Court although took into consideration the decision in B.K. Srinivasan observed that as mode of publication prescribed by Section 25(3) had been complied with as was the case of B.K. Srinivasan and rejected the contention that notwithstanding the publication in the Official Gazette there was yet a failure to make the law known and that therefore the notification did not clear the elements of operativeness and enforceability. It may be noticed that in the aforementioned decision the issue before the apex Court was the vires of a Notification No. 142/86-Cus, dated February 13, 1986.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 155 - V Bose - Full Document

Itc Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad on 15 April, 1994

15. The aforementioned decision was followed by the apex Court in I.T.C. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise 1996 (86) ELT 477 by issuing an order (apparently by disposing of the application at the admission stage) upon following Pankaj Jain Agency . Neither any argument was advanced nor any reason had been assigned as to whether the date on which the law comes into force is the date of publication of the Gazette namely when the same is offered for sale to the citizens who would be affected thereby and not the date when the Gazette is printed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1   2 Next