Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 27 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 130 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Miles India Ltd. vs Appellate Collector Of Customs on 6 January, 1983
In that connection Shri Pattekar relied upon the Tribunal's Special Bench decision in Miles India Ltd. v. Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1983 ECR 242 D(CEGAT) and the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1633 of 1984 in Miles India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
I.T.C. Limited vs M.K. Chipkar And Others on 9 April, 1985
5. During the hearing of this application Shri Parikh contended that the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act are inapplicable to the facts of the appeal. The Customs authorities have no jurisdiction or authority to levy and collect customs duty in respect of the goods which are imported but admittedly missing or lost when they were in the custody of the Port Trust, and as such questions (a) to (d) of para 8 arise. Shri Parikh further urged as an alternative argument that Section 27 of the Customs Act was unconstitutional, illegal, null and void as it violates Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the question (e) of para 8 of the application arises. It was also contended by Shri Parikh that the Tribunal has power to condone the delay if it was satisfied of sufficient reasons for the delay, and as such, question (f) of para 8 of the application arises. He had not addressed any arguments with regard to questions at (g) and (h). Shri Parikh relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1985(22) ELT 334 (BOM) I.T.C. Ltd. v. M.P. Chipkar and Ors. in support of his contention that Section 27(1) would not apply to cases where duty had been levied and collected without authority of law.