Advanced Search Results

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M.M.K. Jewellers and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 11A, 18, 28, 28AB, 28(1), 28(2), 28(3), 72(1), 108, 111, 112, 114, 114A, 130E, 135, 135A, 140 and 143(3); Finance Act, 2000

Reported in : 2008(127)ECC1; 2008(153)LC1(SC); 2008(225)ELT3(SC); 2008(4)SCALE417; (2008)5SCC617; 2008AIRSCW2353

interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President;(ii) any amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to … the conditions of the aforesaid Customs Notification and, consequently, appear to have rendered themselves liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.6. It, therefore, prima facie indicates that the respondent did or omitted to do

Carpenter Classic Exim P. Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs (imports) and an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act 1962 - Sections 28AB, 28(2), 108, 111, 112, 114 and 114A; Finance Act, 2000

Reported in : 2009(164)LC117(SC); 2009(235)ELT201(SC); 2009(3)SCALE144; (2009)11SCC293

interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President;(ii) any amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to … or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or114A-' Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty

Magpie Elechem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (1997)(90)ELT91TriDel

charge 60% of the CIF as over all service charges besides Rs. 2000/- per Plain Paper Copier, as consultancy charges. Shri Khaneja stated that he … goods, does or omits to do act which acts or omission render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or is concerned in purchasing, selling, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or in any other manner dealing with such … after verifying the rates, he finalised the contract for M/s. Magpie Elechem Pvt. Ltd., Alwar and he arranged finances for the import from one Shri D. B. Marwah who lives in East Patel Nager, New Delhi and

Pr. Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Customs (Import) vs.escorts Hear ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

interest under sub-section (8) of section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President; CUS.A.A.Page 10 of 16 (ii) any amount paid to the credit of … goods, i.e. "da Vinci Surgical System" of the declared assessable value of `7,59,02,909 should not be confiscated under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of description.(iv) Why penal action should not be taken against

icici Venture Funds Management Vs. Sofil Information Systems

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2006)6CompLJ134

should be taken to substantiate the case of fraud as held by the Madras High Court in Malleswara Finance and Investments Company Private Limited v.Company Law Board (1995) Vol.82 CC 836, more so, when the contesting parties … R. Murari, learned Counsel, ICICI Venture Capital Fund was established in January, 2000, as a Trust, with the object to formulate scheme(s) in order to … 1. This company petition is filed under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") seeking directions against M/s SOFIL Information Systems Private Limited ("the Company")

Chotoo Sud Vs. Bhagwan Finance Corporation (P)

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2006)130CompCas567

1. The first company petition (CP 7/2000) is filed under Section 111(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") for rectification of the register of members of M/s Bhagwan Finance

Mohan Aluminium (P) Ltd. and Shri Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : Customs

Reported in : (2007)(210)ELT513Tri(Bang.)

interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President.In view of the above explanation, invocation of 114A in the present case … is not a breach of the relevant Order, SCC 167 (8) of Sea Customs Act, 1878 (corresponding to Section 111(2) and 111(e) of Customs Act, 1962.) The infringement of a condition in the import licence not to sell

Lady Amphthil Nurses Instn. and Vs. Cc and ors.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : Right to Information

Reported in : (2001)(76)ECC246

dated 18.10.96 in CWP No. 409/96. The committee was set up by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance. One of the terms of reference of this committee is to enquire whether the concerned institution had fulfilled … and the matter is to be listed for mention on 31st January, 2000. In the Miscellaneous Order the arguments of the senior counsel had been … Section 110 of the Customs Act under the reasonable belief that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. 2. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport) on the basis of investigation and recording of

Gmr Energy Ltd. and Shri Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (2007)(122)ECC355

in respect of that clearances or assessment. The above judgment has been overcome by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 which retrospectively validated the action taken under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 notwithstanding any approval … imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The impugned goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and under 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-was imposed on Shri Siddharth Deb,

Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Customs

Reported in : (2005)(188)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai

and not 24% in view of retrospective amendment introduced to Notification No. 30/97 by Section 127(1) of the Finance Act, 2003 read with SI. No. 7 of the Third Schedule thereof. (vii) Since BCD has been paid, there … Schedule thereof. (vii) Since BCD has been paid, there is no violation of condition of notification and Section 111(o) is not applicable and no penalty is imposable under Section 112.3. We find that the appellants were allowed