Kerala Court July 1976 Judgments
P. C. Abraham Vs. Additional Collector of Customs, Customs House, Will ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)0293B
T. Kochu Thommen, J. - The question for consideration is whether the expression 'a reasonable opportunity of being heard' in clause (c) of section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, includes a right to cross-examine persons who have not been summoned by the department as its witnesses, but whose statements are relied on by it in an enquiry against the petitioner. It is contended that such a right is derived from the principles of natural justice as embodied in the section.2. The facts of this case are : The petitioner is the owner of car K.L.F. 4024. It is one of the several cars alleged to have been involved in smuggling activities on 14-11-1973. The car was seized by the Customs Officer on 15-11-1973. A notice was sent to the petitioner, together with copies of statements of certain persons, including that of the driver of his car, calling upon him to show cause as to why his car should not he confiscated under section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. To this notice the petitioner sent Ext. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West India Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR601(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question referred to us in relation to the assessment of West India Steel Co. Ltd., Feroke, for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1971-72 reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is engaged in the business of production or manufacture of iron and steel (metal) as found in item (1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee was entitled to higher rate of development rebate ?'2. The Tribunal by a common order dealing with the appeals relating to the above assessment orders upheld the contention of the assessee that he was entitled to the higher rate of development rebate. The question has to be answered by interpreting Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(a) and item (1) in the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. We shall extract Section 33(1)(a), (b)(B)(i)(a) :'33. (1)(a) In respect of a new ship or new machinery or plant ...
Tag this Judgment!Metro Readywear Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1976
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT520(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The Metro Readywear Company, Palghat. which is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of women's undergarments known as brassieres, is the writ petitioner before us. On 3.2.1973 a team of Central Excise Officers led by the Range Officer of Central Excise, Palghat (M.O.R.)-2nd respondent-inspected the business premises of the petitioner and seized the entire stock of brassieres consisting of 40,800 numbers packed in 3,400 boxes. Ext. P 2 is the mahazar evidencing the said seizure. The seized articles were entrusted to the custody of Shri S.M.Syed Mohsin, a partner of the said firm, after obtaining an undertaking from him. On the same date the 2nd respondent issued to Shri Syed Mohsin the order Ext. P 3 purporting to be one under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibiting him (Syed Mohsin) from removing, parting or otherwise dealing with the seized goo...
Tag this Judgment!The Metro Readywear Company Vs. the Collector of Customs and Central E ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)357
Balakrisna Eradi, J. - The Metro Readywear Company, Palghat, which is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of womens undergarments known as brassieres, is the writ petitioner before us. On 3-2-1973 a team of Central Excise Officers led by the Range Officer of Central Excise, Palghat (M.O.R.) 2nd respondent-inspected the business premises of the petitioner ad seized the entire stock of brassieres consisting of 40,800 numbers packed in 3400 boxes. Ext. P2 is the mahazar evidencing the said seizure. The seized articles were entrusted to the custody of Shri S. M. Syed Mohsin, a partner of the said firm, after obtaining an undertaking from him. On the same date the 2nd respondent issued to Shri Syed Mohsin the order Ext. P3 purporting to be one under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibiting him (Syed Mohsin) from removing, parting or otherwise dealing with the seized goods de...
Tag this Judgment!Kasaragod Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker50
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This matter has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court as he felt that the decision in Kunju Kunju v. State of Kerala (1971 Ker LT 350) did not expressly refer to Section 7 (1) (c)of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and that the later decision of one of us (myself) in O. P. Nos. 1285 and 1488 of 1974, while it noticed Section 7 (1) (c) and Section 12 (5) of the Act, felt that the latter section furnished an answer to non-compliance with Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act. The learned Judge was inclined to doubt the correctness of this view.2. The question arises in this case in regard to the affairs of the Kasaragod Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, whose area of operation falls in part within the area of operation of the Hosdrug Taluk Land Mortgage Bank, which has been directed to be registered under Section 7 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the Registrar (in this case,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›