Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Section 124 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 November, 2002
28. The Supreme Court in Titan Medical Systems Private Limited v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, 2003 (151) ELT 254 (SC) has held that in respect of duty exemption under a specialised scheme, if there is any misrepresentation, it is for the licensing authority to take steps in that regard. It is relevant to reproduce paragraph (13) of the said judgment, which is as follows:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962
Even if the license was subsequently cancelled, the Supreme Court in the case of Sampat Raj Duggar v. Union of India, 1992 (58) ELT 163 (SC), following East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector, 1983 (13) ELT 1342 (SC) = 1963 (3) SCR 338 has held that on the date of the import the goods were covered by a valid import license. The subsequent cancellation of a licence is of no relevance nor does it retrospectively render the import illegal."
Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/S. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors on 18 November, 2010
30. It is also not in dispute, as held by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.Ex., New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC), that the conditions of notifications have to be scrupulously followed and they are mandatory in nature.
1