Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (6.01 seconds)Section 130 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Customs Act, 1962
The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972
Mathuram Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 1999
26. It is an admitted fact that the word 'fish' has not been defined in the Act itself. In the absence of the definition, rule of interpretation is that particular words used by the legislature in the denomination of articles or goods should be understood according to the common or commercial understanding of the term used, for the Legislature does not suppose our merchants to be naturalists or geologists or biologists and thus resort should be made to understand the popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by finding out as to how those goods were understood by those dealing with them, that is to say, to their commercial sense. (See: Mathuram Agrawal v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 667).
The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897
Navin Chemicals Mfg. And Trading Co. ... vs Collector Of Customs on 15 September, 1993
17. We will now deal with the first question of law regarding the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. We are not able to concur with the learned counsel for the respondent/exporters that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that the determination of question involved in these cases does not have a relation to the rate of duty or value of the goods for the purpose of assessment. The very section has been the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Chemicals Mfg. And Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, (1993) 4 SCC 320. Though in that judgment, much was concentrated on section 129(c) of the Customs Act, reference has also been made to section 130 of the Act and ultimately the Supreme Court has evolved a test for the purpose of determining the question.
Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. & Ors on 10 August, 1988
41. Mr.Joseph Vellapally, sought to take assistance from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woolens (P) Ltd., 1988 (Supp) SCC 796 to contend that the question as to whether 'fish' would include prawns/shrimps, is a question of fact, when the Tribunal and the authorities below have held that they are two different commodities under section 130 of the Customs Act, an appeal which involves a substantial question of law, can alone be entertained and the issue being question of fact, the Court need not interfere with the finding arrived at by the ultimate fact finding authority.