Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(33)ECC29; JT1991(5)SC197; 1991(1)SCALE468; 1991Supp(1)SCC225; [1990]Supp3SCR6; 1991(2)LC256(SC)
ORDER1. The question raised before the High Court, and reiterated here, was whether certain logs of timber imported by the petitioners from Korea, Burma, Malaysia etc. for use in the manufacture of plywood were amenable to Quarantine regulations under the statutory notification dated 27.10.1989 issued under the provisions of an agricultural quarantine law viz., the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')- It was contended before the High Court that the quarantine regulations for the detention, inspection, fumigation, etc of the logs of timber imported for the specific purpose of manufacture of plywood can have no nexus to the object of the Act which was to prevent the introduction into India and prevent the transport from one State to another insects, fungus or other pests destructive of crops. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition in limine.2. Section 3 of the Act, as amended by Act 6 of 1938, envisages that Government may, by notification i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited (hereafter, the manufacturer) is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Lizol (floor cleaner), Harpic (toilet cleaner) and Mortein mosquito repellents. Whether these goods are exigible to value added tax @ 4% under entry 20 of Schedule IV to the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005 (the VAT Act)? This question falls for consideration in the tax revision case filed under Section 34 of the VAT Act and in all the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The essential fact of the matter for proper appreciation of the issue is as follows. Mortein mosquito repellents, Lizol and Harpic are statedly household products manufactured by M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited having registered office at Okla Industrial Estate, New Delhi and branches all over India. After introduction of the VAT, they made an application under Section 67 of the VAT Act to the Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) seeking clarification as to the rate of tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1960Ori65; 1960CriLJ497
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a revision for quashing a criminal proceeding under Section 505 I. P. C. initiated by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Talcher against the petitioner and some other persons. 2. On 5-5-58 one Srinivas Sahu who is said to be the Sarbarakar of Talcher Town filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate againstone Sri Dibakar Misra alleging that the latter had distributed copies of a printed pamphlet at various places in Talcher town on 13-4-1958 with the intention of inciting the general public of Talcher Town against the Government Officials stationed at that place and against some of the political parties and also some lawyers. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation, summoned the said Dibakar Misra, under Section 505 I. P. C. The case proceeded against the said Dibakar Misra in due course and Srinivas Sahu was also examined as P. W. 1 on 10-10-1958. The original manuscript from which the pamphlet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)ALD529; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)671; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)567
ORDER1. This criminal petition, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in PR No.297/97-98 dated 19-8-1998 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Tirupathi in which a case has been registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 36(d) of the A.P. Excise Act, (for short 'the Act').2. It appears that on 19-8-1998, at about 8.50 p.m., when the Excise Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner, who is a licensee under Rule 23 of the A.P. Excise Rules for sate of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor and beer, he found that a person was consuming beer in the licenced premises of the petitioner situated at Tirupathi town. Onfinding this, the first information was recorded and presumably investigation was taken up. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even according to the first information report the petitioner never permitted the person concerned to consume the liquor in the li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(166)ELT366TriDel
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the issue for consideration relates to classification of the appellants product Streptomycin Sulphate 90% W/W + Tetracyclinc Hydro Chloride 10% W/W (for agricultural use). The appellant has classified their product under chapter sub-heading 3808.10 which attracts 8% ad valorem duty, while Department took the view that it is classifiable under 3808.90 attracting duty at the rate of 18%. The original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the Department and duty demand of Rs. 1,96,019/- was confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed.38.08 Insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant growth regulators, disinfectants and similar products, put up in forms or packings for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles, and fly-papers).3808.10 Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, Weedicides 8% and pestici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1469; 1995(51)ECC94; 1995(77)ELT3(SC); JT1995(3)SC552; 1995(2)SCALE716; 1995Supp(2)SCC646; [1995]3SCR369; [1995]99STC339(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 raises the question whether disinfectant fluids manufactured by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1.3.1975, as amended by Notification No. 62/78 dated 1.3.1978.Notification No. 55/75-CE reads as under:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.THE SCHEDULE1. All kinds of food products and food preparations, including-(i) meat, and meat products; (ii) dairy products; (iii) fruits and vegetable products; (iv) fish and sea foods; (v) bakery products, and(vi) grain mill products.2. Electric light and power.In 1978 Item 18 was added to it which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Turner v. Williams - 194 U.S. 279 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904) Turner v. Williams No. 661 Argued April 6-7, 1904 Decided May 16, 1904 194 U.S. 279 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Congress has power to exclude aliens from, and to prescribe the conditions on which they may enter, the United States; to establish regulations for deporting aliens who have illegally entered, and to commit the enforcements of such conditions and regulations to executive officers. Deporting, pursuant to law, an alien who has illegally entered the United States does not deprive him of his liberty without due process of law. The Alien Immigration Act of March, 1903, 32 Stat. 1213, does not violate the federal Constitution, nor are its provisions as to the exclusion of aliens who are anarchists, unconstitutional. A board of inquiry and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor having found that an alien ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1999)1MLJ299
C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant Union, represented by its General Secretary, raised a dispute in I.D. No. 16 of 1982, before the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Madras questioning the action of the Management of M/s. India Cements Limited, touching the non-absorption of the services of Shri. S. Subramani, T. No. 135, Earth Loader of their Karumparathanur Lime Stone Quarry with effect from 11.8.1978, contending that non-absorption is wholly unjust and illegal. The terms of reference contain the word 'termination' though it relates to non-absorption. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of the management and ordered reinstatement with full back wages from the date of reference, viz., 27.2.1982. The Management/ Respondent No. 1 herein, assailed the order in W.P. No. 8275 of 1985, dated 6.11.1995 before this Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 6.11.1995. That order of the learned single Judge is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999(81)FLR858]; (1999)IILLJ1Mad
C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant Union, represented by its General Secretary, raised a dispute in I.D. No. 16 of 1982, before the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Madras questioning the action of the Management of M/s. India Cements Limited, touching the non-absorption of the services of Shri S. Subramani, T.No. 135, Earth Loader of their Karumparathanur Lime Stone Quarry with effect from August 11, 1978, contending that non-absorption is wholly unjust and illegal. The terms of reference contain the word 'termination' though it relates to non-absorption. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of the management and ordered reinstatement with full back wages from the date of reference, viz., February 27, 1982. The Management/ Respondent No. 1 herein, assailed the order in W.P. No. 8275 of 1985, dated November 6, 1995 before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated November 6, 1995. That order of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ449
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.8.2007 of the first respondent/Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. 55 of 2005 and confirming the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2005. 2. Under the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2005, the second respondent, who has earlier given consent order to the petitioner/Unit under Section 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity, 'the Act'), having found, on inspection of the unit of the petitioner on 31.3.2005, that the unit has not taken action for segregation of high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) dyebath effluent, has directed the unit to segregate the high TDS effluent and to provide Mechanical Evaporator within six months, stating that the consent is valid for the period ending 31.12.2005.3. It was against the said order, the petitioner/Unit has filed an appeal bef...
Tag this Judgment!