Supreme Court of India
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors.
INSC stands for INDIAN SUPREME COURT. A neutral citation scheme assigned by the Court itself, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter. INSC is the neutral citation scheme assigned by the Supreme Court, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter.
5 Supreme Court benches have cited this judgment.
What the Court ordered
We hold that a statement recorded by customs officers under Section 108 G of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence.
Judgment, page 8
From the headnote
Customs Act, 1962 : Section 108. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 164 Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : Section 9(1) Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 24 and 25. Excise officer-Statements recorded by-Admissibility of Cigarette companies-Directors-Prosecution under section 9( 1) of Central Excise Act and Section 120- Indian Penal Code-Statements of - accused recorded by excise officer-Accused not administered warning as required under section 164(2) Criminal Procedure Code-Held, such statements are admissible in evidence-However court should examine whether inculpatory statements were
Where later benches applied it
- 2013 R. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
- 2008 Vinod Solanki v. Union of India & Anr.
- 2008 Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc
- 2007 Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr.
- 2001 Gulam Hussain Shaikh Chougule v. S. Reynolds, Suptd. of Customs, Marmgoa
Of those, 1 relied on · 4 mentioned
Sign in free to read it
- The full judgment, page by page, as published in the Supreme Court Reports
- The ratio: what the Court held, verbatim, with the page it sits on
- Every bench that relied on it, and every bench that argued against it
- Search every reported judgment, by party, citation or question
- Download the PDF, copy pinpoint citations ready for a filing
An email address, no password.