Court : US Supreme Court
Clifton v. United States - 45 U.S. 242 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Clifton v. United States, 45 U.S. 4 How. 242 242 (1846) Clifton v. United States 45 U.S. (4 How.) 242 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR EAST PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Upon the trial of a cause where goods had been seized upon suspicion of being fraudulently imported and the United States had shown sufficient ground for an opinion of the court that probable cause existed for the prosecution, and notice had been given to the claimant to produce his books and accounts relating to those goods, it was proper for the court to instruct the jury that if the claimant had withheld the testimony of his accounts and transactions with the parties abroad from whom he received the goods, they were at liberty to presume that, if produced, they would have operated unfavorably to his cause. The doctrine laid down in 2 Evans' Pothier 149, cited and approved, namely, "That if the weaker and less satisfactory evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1985)LC622Tri(Chennai)
1. This is an application for reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on certain points said to be questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 21-1-1984 in Appeal No.CD(T)(MAS) 122/80. A short resume of the relevant facts may be necessary before deciding the questions of law canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.2. On 29-2-1972, the Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer checked a lorry bearing registration number MYD 4124 engaged by the applicant, Rekhi Roadlines Private Limited to transport their goods from Bangalore to Madras and recovered 210 wrist watches bearing foreign names such as Henry Sandos, Fortis, Citizen, etc. etc., kept in a packet labelled "stationery articles". The consignment in question was transported from the applicant's head office at Bangalore to their branch office at Madras under 'self free of charge with a false package label "stationery articles". The Branch Manager of the applicant's company who cleared the consignme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1. This is an appeal filed on be-half of the Agartala Municipality by its Food Inspector against the acquittal of the respondent Gopal Chandra Saha by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1958. The respondent was convicted in Criminal Case No. 217 of 1958 by the first class Magistrate, Agartala under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51/-. But on appeal he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge.2. The facts may be briefly stated:- The respondent and one Govinda Chandra Saha were the employees of a Firm called Srikishna Stores Carrying on whole-sale and retail business in mustard oil in Agartala. On 16-4-1958 the appellant, the Food Inspector of the Agartala Municipality on receipt of information that the two persons were filling up mustard oil in the godown of the Firm from a big barrel of mustard oil into smaller tins having the embossed marks of the manufacturers of various brands of mustard oil....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT520
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. This Crl.M.C. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of a tanker lorry seized by the Assistant Controller (Flying Squad), Department of Legal Metrology, Thrissur, for allegedly violating Section 37(1)(vii) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Enforcement Act' for short), comes up before us on a reference by one of us, (Padmanabhan Nair, J.)2. The aforesaid tanker lorry bearing registration No. KL-7F 6093 of which the petitioner herein (1st accused in S.T.No. 4940/03 on the file of JFCM, Chittur) is the registered owner, was on inspection by the respondent Assistant Controller on 1.8.2003, found to contain a secret chamber inside the 3rd compartment of the main tank. The said secret chamber having a capacity of 121.108 liters was fitted with a special valve which would open to facilitate the secret chamber also to get filled while the main tank was filled with fuel. But while emptying th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Armour Packing Co. v. United States - 209 U.S. 56 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56 (1908) Armour Packing Company v. United States Nos. 467-470 Argued January 20-22, 1908 Decided March 16, 1908 209 U.S. 56 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A device to obtain rebates, to be within the prohibition of the Interstate Commerce Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 857, and the Elkins Act of February 19, 1903, 32 Stat. 847, need not necessarily be fraudulent. The term "device," as used in those statutes, includes any plan or contrivance whereby merchandise is transported for less than the published rate, or any other advantage is given to, or discrimination practiced in favor of, the shipper. Page 209 U. S. 57 In construing the Elkins Act, it will be read not only in the light of the previous legislation on the same subject, but also of the purpose which Congress had in mind in enacting it -- to require ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Both these Criminal Revisions were heard and allowed by order dated 21.8.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on and accordingly the reasons for allowing those revisions are stated as follows:2. Both the Criminal Revisions have been presented by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing of all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Guwahati as well as at Jorhat.3. Criminal Revision No. 308/93 has been directed against the initiation of the criminal proceeding in case No. 1661(C)/90 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup Guwahati on the basis of a complaint lodged by Food Inspector, Kamrup, Guwahati, Respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') framed thereunder and subsequent issuance of the notice against the Petitioner.4. In Criminal Revision No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1991(53)ELT234(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This case arises out of a show cause notice being F. No. 574/CE/3/87 dated 27th March 1987 issued by the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise). A writ petition challenging the aforesaid notice was moved before Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. On 18th August, 1987 an interim order was passed by Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. to the effect that the respondents were allowed to proceed pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice. It was further directed that the petitioner would be at liberty to submit their reply to the show cause notice without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondents were given liberty to conclude the proceedings and pass a final order on the proceedings. But the respondents were directed not to give any effect to or act upon or communicate the final order to the petitioner without leave of the Court.2. The writ petition came up for hearing before Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee J. On 14th August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Buckley v. United States - 45 U.S. 251 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Buckley v. United States, 45 U.S. 4 How. 251 251 (1846) Buckley v. United States 45 U.S. (4 How.) 251 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus In the trial of a cause where goods had been seized upon suspicion of being fraudulently imported, it was proper to allow to go to the jury as evidence appraisements of the goods made either by the official appraisers or appraisers acting under an appeal, they being present to verify the papers. The objection that the appraisements had not been made in presence of the jury was not sufficient. Such papers are documents or public writings, not judicial, and may be used as evidence under the rules which regulate all that class of papers. Other invoices of other goods imported by the party are admissible. The decision on this point in Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 359-360, confirmed. It was proper to show in such a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Kollock - 165 U.S. 526 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court In re Kollock, 165 U.S. 526 (1897) In re Kollock No. 9, Original Argued January 25, 1891 Decided March 1, 1897 165 U.S. 526 ORIGINAL Syllabus The Act of August 2, 1886, c. 840, imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, etc. of oleomargarine, required packages thereof to be marked and branded, prohibited the sale of packages that were not, and prescribed the punishment of sales in violation of its provisions. It authorized the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to make regulations describing the marks, stamps, and brands to be used. Held that such leaving the matter of designating the marks, brands, and stamps to the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, involved no unconstitutional delegation of power. Kollock was indicted in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for the violation of the sixth section of the Act of Congress approved August 2, 1886, 24 Stat. 209, c. 840, entitled "An a...
Tag this Judgment!