Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962
In the light of the above discussion, we agree with the aforesaid
observations and the conclusion arrived at in that regard in view of the
observations of the Apex Court in the case of M/s East India
Commercial Co Ltd Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1983 (13)
ELT 1342.
Union Of India & Others vs Inter Continental (India) on 23 April, 2008
Moreover, the Punjab & Haryana High Court relied on the decision of High Court of
Gujarat in Inter Continental (India) vs. Union of India - 2003 (154) ELT 37,
affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Inter Continental (India)
) Madura Coats Ltd vs ) Cce Madurai on 26 February, 2008
Following the decision of the Apex Court in East India, the
Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats Vs CCE, Bangalore 1996 (82) ELT 512,
reiterated that the decision of a particular High Court should certainly be followed by
all authorities within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court and that the
authorities in another State are not bound to follow the views taken by a particular
High Court in the absence of a decision by the jurisdictional High Court.
Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991
16. The appellant at the time of export had not mentioned anything on the
shipping bills about the rate of duty drawback or other requirements as per
Drawback Rules. Therefore, the Customs Officer had not examined the goods at the
time of export for the purpose of drawback benefits. Applying the aforesaid
principles laid down by the Apex Court in Indian Aluminium Companies (supra)
we are of the considered view that since the exporter failed to furnish the details to
avail the drawback at the time of filing of shipping bills and clearance of export
goods, the documentary evidence in that regard cannot be subsequently furnished.
M/S.Terra Films Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 6 April, 2011
In so far as the present case is
concerned, we do not find the same being distinguishable from the decision of the
Delhi High Court in M/s. Terra (supra) and being the jurisdictional High Court we are
bound by the said decision and the interpretation placed on Section 149 of the
Customs Act and the Circular. The appellant had referred to certain latest decisions
of various High Courts and Tribunal where the Circular No. 36/2010 was under
Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs Diamond @ Gem Development on 10 July, 2013
19. The contention raised by the appellant that the circular by prescribing the
period of 3 months for making the application for conversion of the scheme is
beyond the provisions of section 149 of the Customs Act is already unsustainable.
We do not agree with such a submission for the simple reason that section 149 is
silent on the aspect of limitation and the circular has only filled in that lacuna which
does not amount to overriding the statutory provision. A circular though being a
subordinate legislation can very well provide for the actual modalities for working
out the provisions of the statute specially when the main statue its silent on that
aspect. If the circular can be accepted for extending the benefit to the exporter it
can also impose conditions for receiving those benefits. The Apex Court in
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v.
Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470 was
pleased to observe as follows: