Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.33 seconds)Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Defence of India Act, 1962
Jayantilal Amrathlal vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 22 February, 1971
In the present case facts are almost identical to the case of Jayantilal v. Union of India (supra). The only new development which has taken place in this case is that the Gold Control Act, 1968 was repealed by the Government by the repealing Act of 1990, that is, Gold Control Repeal Act, 1990. The statement of objects and reasons of the repealed act reads as under:
Repealing Act, 1938
C.I.T vs Dhadi Sahu on 18 November, 1992
In both the cases that is Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Dhadi Sahu (supra) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Dharadamma (supra), referred to above, their Lordships of the Apex Court has observed that since the matter was seized by the authorities and that will not defeat their right to adjudicate the matter because of the litigation before the Court. Therefore, it does not mean that by change of nomenclature of the authorities they will not have the right to adjudicate the matter. An affidavit to this effect has been filed by the Revenue that the cases will be decided by these very authorities, though they have now been designated as Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Instead of Collector of Central Excise and Customs. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.