Skip to content

Chennai Court June 1993 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Jun 03 1993

Syed Kaleemullah and anr. Vs. the Appraising Officer, Special Investig ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-03-1993

Reported in: 1997(57)ECC83

ORDERArunachalam, J.1. Bail plea of the petitioners in both these petitions and another R.D. Sethuraman, involved in this crime, was negatived by this Court, by a common order pronounced on 18th May, 1993 in Crl. O.P. Nos. 5540, 5542 and 5922 of 1993. 2. Even so, petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 6365 of 1993, chose to prefer yet another application for bail on 24th May, 1993, virtually challenging the sustainability of the earlier order passed by this Court, apart from raising a new contention. 3. On 31.5.1993, petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 6533 of 1993 had chosen to renew his bail plea, on a single ground. 4. I do not intend to narrate facts in detail, for they have been stated in my earlier order, dated 18th May, 1993. 5. Mr. M.R.M. Abdul Kareem, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 6365 of 1993, realising that if the validity of the earlier order of this Court had to be challenged on its inherent merits, it must be before the higher forum, restricte...


Jun 01 1993

Titan Watches Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-01-1993

Reported in: 1994(46)ECC117; 1994(69)ELT22(Mad)

ORDER1. Broadly speaking, in all these matters, a common question of law arises for consideration. In fact, common arguments were advanced by learned Counsel on both sides, and hence these matters are disposed of by this common order.2. The common question that arises for consideration in these cases, again broadly putting it, is about the scope and extent of the Exemption Notification bearing No. 45/85-Customs, dated 28-2-1985, issued by the Central Government, under Section 25(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said Exemption Notification (which will hereinafter be referred as 'the Notification') prescribes concessional duty for horological machines and testing equipment (the goods) when imported into India, for the purpose of manufacture or assembly of mechanical wrist watches or parts thereof and quartz analog wrist watches or parts thereof. Of course, the Notification imposes as many as five conditions for availing the concessi...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial