Comentários do leitor

NRI Legal Services Ludhiana - When to deal with property related issues in property disputes without coming to India by Simranjeet Law Associates - 5 Essential Elements For NRI Legal Services

"Rogelio Carney" (2018-12-09)


HOs9SZc.pngIf it nrillegalservices is NRI found that NRI Legal there was legal ev i- dence before the Tribunal even if some of it was irrelevan t, a superior court would not interfere if the finding can be sustained on the rest of the evidence. The State Government had in the meanwhile prescribed a 50 point roster to implement the policy of reservation to posts and appointments for members of the backward classes under Art. Nagesh Dwivedi was its Director. So read, it is clear that an "Actual User (Industrial)" means an industrial undertaking which is entitled to NRI Legal services utilise the imported goods "in the manufacturing process or operations conducted within its authorised premises.

Indeed, it has been laid down in Lakshmi Singh's case that the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution will not affect the prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. In other words, the importer must not be debarred from utilising the imported goods under the terms of the industrial licence.

In exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 130(2) of the Act, he set aside the order of the Customs Officer allowing the goods to be cleared by the appellant and, thereafter, in exercise of his original jurisdiction under section 122 read with section 124 of the Act, he issued a show cause notice on the appellant and, after hearing the appellant, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on the appellant. "The High Court NRI Legal services was right in holding that even if there were amongst NRI Legal services the reasons given by the Commissione r, some which were extraneous, if the rest were relevant a nd could be considered sufficient, the Commissioner's concl u- sions would not be vitiated.

This is a mere irregularity not affecting the order. " The view taken in Bidyabhushan case has been repeated ly affirmed and reiterated in Railway Board v. Niranjan Sing h[1969] INSC 23; , [1969] 3 SCR 548 at 552; O. [506E-F] (4) It appears, however, that the confiscation was made and the penalties imposed by the Collector of Customs in exercise of his revisional power under section 130(2) of the act. , in Sardar Bahadur's case (at 225): Sardar Bahadur, [1972] 2 SCR 218. At the time of creation of the separate Directorate, the Government sanctioned the posts of two Deputy Directors for each of the two remaining systems.

There was, in our view, legal eviden ce before the Commissioner upon which he was entitled to re st his finding that the copies relied on by the appellant we re not genuine. But in a case where t he conclusion is based on objective facts and evidence, such a difficult 32 would not arise. % The State of Bihar had a Directorate of Indigenous Systems of Medicines which was a part of its Health Department and one Dr. The principle that if some of the reasons relied on by a Tribunal for its conclusion tu rn out to be extraneous or otherwise unsustainable, its dec i- sion would be vitiated, applies to cases in which the co n- clusion is arived at not on assessment of objective sati s- faction.

[505A-B] (3) In view of the provisions of section 122 read with section 124 of the Customs Act, the Collector of Customs has the jurisdiction to confiscate goods or impose penalty after issuing show cause notice. A ny doubts as to the incapacity of the Court to review t he merits of the penalty must vanish when we read the remar ks of Mathew, J. 1978 the State Government created a separate Directorate of Indigenous Medicines, the Director being from one of the systems of medicines consisting of Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic.

He has, therefore, both the original jurisdiction as also revisional jurisdiction. HELD: (1) There can be no doubt that the definition of " nrillegalservices Actual User (Industrial)", as contained in clause (3) of paragraph 5 of chapter 2 of Import Policy 1978-79 should be read with the definition of "Actual 497 User" in clause (1) of paragraph 5. The reason is that in a writ petition for certiorari, the superior court does n ot sit in appeal, but exercises only supervisory jurisdictio n, and therefore, does not enter into the question of suff i- ciency of evidence.

The reason is that whereas in cases where t he decision is based on subjective satisfaction if some of t he reasons turn out to be irrelevant or invalid, it would be impossible for a superior court to find out which of t he reasons, relevant or irrelevant, valid or invalid, h ad brought about such satisfaction. [504C-D] (2) The declaration of the appellant that it is an Actual User, and that its registration has not been other- wise made inoperative is a false declaration, as rightly held by the Collector of Customs.

NRI-LEGAL-SERVICES.pngWhen the industrial li- cence granted to the appellant does not permit the use of the imported goods for the manufacture of SMX, the importa- tion of the goods under the OGL is illegal and could not be allowed to be cleared by the appellant. Gupta case AIR 1970 SC 679 a nd Union of India v.