Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.28 seconds)
M/S. Viraj Steel & Energy Private Ltd vs Joint Commissioner Of State Tax .... ... on 15 May, 2025
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 130 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Weston Components Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi on 4 January, 2000
A reading of
the judgment/order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.
Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs,
New Delhi (supra), would show that the Apex Court
has taken the view that redemption fine can be imposed
even in the absence of the goods as the goods were
released to the appellant on an application made by it
and on the appellant executing a bond. Since the goods
were released on a bond the position is as if the goods
were available. The ratio of the above decision cannot
be understood that in all cases the goods were
permitted to be cleared initially and later proceedings
were taken for under-valuation or other irregularity,
even then redemption fine could be imposed. We are,
therefore, not inclined to accept the contention raised
W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Page 29 of 37
by the appellant on this issue and set aside the
redemption fine.
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 11 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
This Court
observed : (Gujarat Ambuja Cement case [State of
H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499]
, SCC pp. 517-18, para 23)
"23. Where under a statute there is an allegation of
infringement of fundamental rights or when on the
undisputed facts the Taxing Authorities are shown to
have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess
can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be
entertained. But normally, the High Court should not
entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is
something more in a case, something going to the
root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which
would show that it would be a case of palpable
injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt
the remedies provided by the statute.
The Commissioner Of Customs (Import vs M/S. Finesse Creation Inc on 25 August, 2009
11. The Bombay High Court in Finesse Creation INC (supra) held
that there is no fetter on the part of the authority to confiscate the goods
not physically available, but such situation would arise when the goods
which were physically available were released on execution of a bond or
undertaking and not otherwise in the following:
Commnr. Of Customs, Bangalore vs M/S. G.M. Exports & Ors on 23 September, 2015
which
was further affirmed by the Supreme Court and such order is reported in
2010 (255) ELT A120 (SC); Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v.
G.M. Exports, 2012 (279) ELT 493 (Kar.