Rajendran Kumar and ors. Vs. State of T.N. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- central excise act, 1944.[c.a. no. 1/1944]. section 3(1), proviso (ii) (as it stood prior to 11.05.2001) & 5-a(1): [s.h. kapadia & b. sudershan reddy, jj] notification no. 2/95-ce dd04.01.1995: exemption as to imports and exports 100% eou entitlement to and extent of admissible benefit texturised polyester yarn and dyed polyester yarn manufactured and sold by such a unit against foreign exchange in domestic tariff area (dta) with permission of competent authority under para 9.10(b) of export & import policy, 1997-2002, held, it is covered by the expression allowed to be sold in india occurring in proviso (ii) to section 3(1) (as it then stood). hence, attracted the benefit of notification no. 2/95-ce as did dta sales against rupee further held, cegat erred in inferring from para.....order1. this court disposed of criminal appeal no. 972 of 1998 by order dated 21-9-1998 allowing the appeal and remanding the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. the petitioner in the present petition prays that on remand the appeal has to be heard by a bench different from the one which disposed of the criminal appeal in the high court on the earlier occasion. we do not accept all the reasons given in support of the petition. independent of that, we are of the view, on the facts of this case, it would be appropriate that criminal appeal no. 445 of 1988 on the file of the high court of judicature at madras is heard and disposed of by a bench other than the one which disposed of the same appeal before remand. we order accordingly. we further request the high court to dispose of.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 1998 by order dated 21-9-1998 allowing the appeal and remanding the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner in the present petition prays that on remand the appeal has to be heard by a Bench different from the one which disposed of the criminal appeal in the High Court on the earlier occasion. We do not accept all the reasons given in support of the petition. Independent of that, we are of the view, on the facts of this case, it would be appropriate that Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 1988 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras is heard and disposed of by a Bench other than the one which disposed of the same appeal before remand. We order accordingly. We further request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The liberty given in the order of this Court dated 21-9-1998 to the appellants at the end, shall remain.

2. The petition is accordingly disposed of.