Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nirali Enterprise Vs. Union of India

Nirali Enterprise vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Jul 10, 1990
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/355070

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 2037 of 1990
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Excise
Acts & sections
Central Excise Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nirali Enterprise

Advocate D.H. Mehta and;Shri N.M. Shah, Advs.

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate Shri L.S. Vyas, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Central Excise Act
Reported In
1990(50)ELT497(Bom)

Excerpt

- .....i thought that the collector peruses the invoice and bill of entries together and does not require an order of the court to do so. indeed in all the minutes which are filed, liberty has been given too the respondents to continue departmental adjudication proceedings and pass order. the relief is granted to the petitioners to clear the goods on a provisional basis. in my judgment, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents is totally misconceived.3. accordingly, the following order is passed and the petition is disposed of.'the respondents to allow clearance of the goods covered by bills of entry, being exhibits 'c-1' to 'c-7' to the petition on provisional assessment on the basis of invoice value as set out in exhibits 'b-1' to 'b-7' to the petition and furnishing only a personal bond without bank guarantee for the difference of amount of duty as claimed by the respondents. this order pertains to valuation dispute only. the respondents will be at liberty to continue any departmental adjudication proceedings and pass order. liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order, when passed by the respondents.'4. the respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioners.

Full Judgment

Rule returnable forthwith.

Shri Vyas waives service on behalf of the respondents.

Heard Counsel.

1. Several petitions are filed in this Court seeking identical reliefs as in present petition and minutes of order are tendered in all the petitions. Shri Vyas has raised objection to pass identical order on two counts. The first objection is that the petitioner ought to have filed several separate petitions. The objection is that the petitioners have imported various consignments by different ships and in respect of those diverse consignments separate petitions should have been filed. It is difficult to find any merit in the submission, save and except that the respondents desire that there should be multiplicity of litigation. It is difficult to appreciate who would be benefited by filing separate petitions when the relief claimed is identical and it is the petitioners alone who have imported all these consignments. The first objection is therefore overruled.

2. The second objection raised by Shri Vyas is that the invoices filed by the petitioners are not very clear but are vague as though the quantity, unit price and amount is set out, other details are not furnished. Shri Vyas also claimed that though the bills of entries are filed and all other details are supplied, unless this Court gives direction the Collector will not read invoice and bills of entries together. It is difficult to imagine such a submission. I thought that the Collector peruses the invoice and bill of entries together and does not require an order of the court to do so. Indeed in all the minutes which are filed, liberty has been given too the respondents to continue departmental adjudication proceedings and pass order. The relief is granted to the petitioners to clear the goods on a provisional basis. In my judgment, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents is totally misconceived.

3. Accordingly, the following order is passed and the petition is disposed of.

'The respondents to allow clearance of the goods covered by bills of entry, being Exhibits 'C-1' to 'C-7' to the petition on provisional assessment on the basis of invoice value as set out in Exhibits 'B-1' to 'B-7' to the petition and furnishing only a personal bond without bank guarantee for the difference of amount of duty as claimed by the respondents. This order pertains to valuation dispute only. The respondents will be at liberty to continue any departmental adjudication proceedings and pass order. Liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order, when passed by the respondents.'

4. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioners.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial