Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
B. Lakshmichand vs Government Of India on 18 September, 1981
In support of this contention, learned counsel brought to our notice a Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of B. Lakshnichand v. Government of India [1983 (12) E.L.T. 322 (Mad.)]. On the facts of that case, the learned single Judge held that the departmental authorities have not made up their mind at the earlier stage or at the subsequent stage of the proceedings and the passing of the order as to which of the clause of Section 112 would be attracted in the case. On the ground that the authorities dealt the whole matter in a sphere of ambiguity, the action of the department was interfered with. Unlike the facts in that case, the noticees in the instant case were told that they violated the provisions contained in Section 111(m) of the Act in getting goods by over-valuing it. It was in such a situation, noticees were called upon to explain why penalty under Section 112 should not be imposed. So, according to us, the above quoted decision of the Madras High Court is not of any assistance to the appellant herein.
J.K. Steel Ltd vs Union Of India on 18 October, 1968
We do not find our way to subscribe to this view expressed by the learned single Member because of the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 355)]. In that decision, their Lordships, after referring to various decisions of that Court, stated the law in the following terms :-
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
1