Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)State Of Haryana vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd on 20 November, 1987
The words for use used in similar exemption Notifications have also been construed by this Court earlier in the State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., 1987 (Suppl) SCC 679 to mean intended for use. According to this decision the object of grant of exemption was only to debar those importer/manufacturers from the benefit of the Notifications who had diverted the products imported for other purposes and had no intention to use the same for manufacture of the specified items at any stage.
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 12 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
) King Rotors & Air Charter Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Acc & Import), ... on 17 June, 2011
It is not in dispute that the appellant had imported parts of picture tubes for manufacture of colour picture tubes. Both the input and the manufactured items are covered by the Notifications. It is also not in dispute that a small percentage of the imported parts were damaged in Transit and could not be used to manufacture picture tubes during the year 2000-2001. The appellant claimed the benefit of the aforesaid Notifications in respect of the entire lot of the parts imported relying, inter alia, upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in National Organic Chemical Indus. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Import), Mumbai, 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1072 which had held that the benefit of the Notifications could not be denied in respect of goods which were intended for use for manufacture of the final product but could not be so used due shortage or leakage. The Notifications relied upon in the decision in National Organic Chemical Indus.
M/S. Bpl Display Devices Ltd. vs C.C.E., Meerut. on 10 May, 2001
(x) It has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment of BPL Display Devices Ltd. Vs CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2004 (174) ELT 5 (SC) as under:-
S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999
At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a Larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every presiding officer of a judicial forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again that precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A Coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a Larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement.
We respectfully concur with these observations and are confident that all the Courts and various Tribunals in the country shall follow these salutary observations in letter and spirit.
1