Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.20 seconds)Section 21 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
P.S. Bedi And Co. vs Collector Of Customs on 2 December, 1991
Therefore, following the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of K.P.S. and Co. v. Collector, 2001 (129) ELT 17$, the order of suspension was set aside on the plea of violation of principles of natural justice.
Jeena And Co. vs Collector Of Customs And Ors. on 6 February, 1987
The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Jeena and Co. v. Collector of Customs and Anr., 1987 (13) ECC 117 (Cal.) : 1987 (28) ELT 223 (Cal.) struck down the order of suspension as invalid for not complying with the principles of natural justice as such action entails grave civil consequences and must not be jettisoned except in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands.
M/S. International Shipping Agency, ... vs Commissioner Of Customs(G) Mumbai on 16 February, 2001
In the case of D.H. Patkar and Co. v. CC (G), Mumbai, 2002 (150) ELT 1168 (Tri.-Mum.), the Tribunal set aside the order of suspension on the plea that when the enquiry was under way, then the orders could be made either for suspension or revocation. But while the enquiry is in progress, the learned Commissioner chose to use his powers under Regulation 21 to place the licence under suspension.
Section 18 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 July, 1997
The Tribunal has noted a large number of judgments including Larger Bench judgment and that of the judgment rendered in the case of K.P.S. and Co. v. Commissioner, 2001 (129) ELT 128 (Tri.), to pass the order.
Rajinder Kumar Goyal vs Collector Of Customs on 6 April, 1995
The Delhi High Court also set aside the order of suspension in the case of Rajinder Kumar Goyal v. Collector of Customs, 1995 (79) ELT 54 (Del.) when the order was found to be not within the terms of "immediate action for suspension of licence" in terms of Regulation 21(2) of CHALR. We find that in the present circumstance also, the facts could not come within the ambit of the terms noted in Regulation 21(2) of CHALR.