Allahabad Court May 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gram Sabha Vs. Ram Dev and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3277
ORDERKundan Singh, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18-8-92, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in criminal revision No. 2 of 1992 whereby he has rejected the application 11 Kha moved by the Gaon Sabha, the applicant for its impleadment as a party in the revision aforesaid.2. In short, the facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, were institute/d at the instance of the applicant for removal of unauthorised constructions raised by opposite party No. 1 Ram Deo on the public path and the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. These proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P.C. terminated against opposite party No. 1, who feeling aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad, filed Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1992 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which came up for hearing before the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. In that revision Ram Deo d...
Avon Sulphonation (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT228(All)
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. This petition raises the question whether Modvat credit already allowed on the duty paid input used in the manufacture of acid slurry, can be recovered on the ground that it was wrongly paid to the extent of spent acid, which was not actually consumed in the manufacture of final product.2. Similar question came up for our consideration in Writ Petition No. 1580 of 1991, in which we by order of date held that duty paid input having been physically involved in the manufacture of final product, Modvat credit already allowed thereon, cannot be said to have been wrongly allowed and hence can not be recovered by the impugned notice.3. Following the said decision, we uphold the contention of the petitioner.4. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed and the impugned notice dated 4-11-1991 (Annexure '6' to the petition) is quashed....
Varuna Sulphonators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: 1993(68)ELT42(All)
1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of acid slurry. It is not disputed that for the manufacture of acid slurry, sulphuric acid is used as 'input'. During the process of manufacture of the acid slurry, contends the petitioner, a by-product is obtained known as 'spent sulphuric acid'. On duty-paid input from May to October, 1991, the MODVAT Credit was taken in full by the petitioner while clearing the final product, that is, the acid slurry.2. Taking recourse to Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (briefly 'the Rules'), impugned notice dated 28-11-1991 (Annexure '6' to the writ petition) was served on the petitioner calling upon it to show cause why MODVAT credit to the extent of Rs. 36,798/- should not be recovered from it. Brief reason for demanding the aforesaid amount given in the said notice, is that duty-paid input was not consumed in full in the manufacture of final product and that 'the differential quantity is neither waste nor a product other than the said i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›