Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)

Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994

In this case, however, the law stated in Kasinka Trading & Anr. (supra) is reiterated but there is no plea in the petition that the formation of opinion as to public interest is based on no material or was vitiated by malafides. In the present case, the position is altogether different. Specific plea has been raised that there is no basis for formation of the opinion as to public interest calling for withdrawal or modification of the exemption already granted. Therefore, the principle stated in that case has no application to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 256 - M N Venkatachaliah - Full Document

Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996

This decision is the same in Shrijee Sales Corporation & Anr. (supra) wherein it was noticed that once public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the principle would be applicable even in cases where a period has been indicated for which period the notification would remain in force and Government is competent to resile from a promise. It was further noticed therein that the Government can resile from a promise even if there is no manifest public interest involved provided, of course, that no one is put in any adverse situation which cannot be rectified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 226 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors. vs Indian Charge Chrome & Anr. on 25 August, 1999

The pattern of the law imposing customs duties and the manner in which it is operated to a certain extent exposes the citizens who are liable to pay customs duties to the vagaries of executive discretion. While Parliament has imposed duties by enacting the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the executive Government is given wide power by Section 25 of the Customs Act to grant exemption from the levy of customs duty. It is ordinarily assumed that while such wide power is given to the Government, it will consider all relevant aspects governing the question whether exemption should be granted or not. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned counsel for respondents, relied on Union of India v. Indian Charge Chrome, 1999 (112) ELT 753 (S.C.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 69 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs R.M.D.C. Press Pvt. Ltd. on 21 March, 1996

Relying upon a decision in Collector of Central Excise v. R.M.D.C. Press Pvt. Ltd., 1997 (92) ELT 29 (S.C.), it was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that public interest should be presumed to exist even when the judgment under appeal does not expressly refer to public interest which moved the respondents to curtail the period of exemption. When a specific contention had been raised regarding non-existence of public interest in curtailing the period of exemption, we fail to understand as to how this decision can be of any assistance to the learned counsel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1