Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1996)(83)ELT407Tri(Chennai)
1. This reference application is filed by the department and is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 18-3-1992 in Order No.636/1992.3. Shri Arulsamy, the learned DR submitted that under the impugned order the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam, dated 29-8-1990 tinder the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the 'Act' for short on the ground that the department issued a show cause notice on 4-6-1990 against the respondent and the records did not indicate that the show cause notice had been served on the respondent before the repeal of the Act which was on 6-6-1990. The learned DR submitted that the evidence would show that the show cause notice was served on the respondent on the day when the Gold (Control) Act was repealed and issue of a show cause notice would amount to initiation of proceedings and therefore, in terms of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act pending legal proceedings or investigations instituted would...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4682 of 2005 ------- Gurusharan Mahto, S/o Lala Mahto, Resident of Ullao, Begusarai, Permanently shifted at under P.S. Misir Gonda Town, in the District of Ranchi ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India 2. Coal and Mines Welfare Commissioner, Dhanbad; 3. Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (NEE), C.C.L, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 4. Dy. Personnel Manager, Central Coalfields Ltd., Central Hospital, Naisarai, P.O. Ramgarh Cantt. Hazaribagh; 5. Senior Accounts Officer, C.C.L, R.P.P.A.O., Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, Jagjiwan Nagar, Dhanbad; ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, CGC. ------ C.A.V. On 16.01.2015 Pronounced on 27/01/2015 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/direction(s) to the respondents to all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 527 of 2014 Reserved on: January 9, 2015 Decision on: February 11, 2015 JAGDEO SINGH @ JAGGA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.D. Rana, Advocate versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell WITH CRL. A. 529 of 2014 GURDEEP SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Vikas Gautam, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell WITH CRL. A. 607 of 2014 SUKHVINDER SINGH @ SUKHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1102.2015 Introduction 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21 st December 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS in SC No.82 of 2008 convicting Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga (Accused No.1) (A-1) (Appellant in Crl.A. No.527 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21 (c) and 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 527 of 2014 Reserved on: January 9, 2015 Decision on: February 11, 2015 JAGDEO SINGH @ JAGGA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.D. Rana, Advocate versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell WITH CRL. A. 529 of 2014 GURDEEP SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Vikas Gautam, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell WITH CRL. A. 607 of 2014 SUKHVINDER SINGH @ SUKHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1102.2015 Introduction 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21 st December 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS in SC No.82 of 2008 convicting Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga (Accused No.1) (A-1) (Appellant in Crl.A. No.527 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21 (c) and 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 527 of 2014 Reserved on: January 9, 2015 Decision on: February 11, 2015 JAGDEO SINGH @ JAGGA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.D. Rana, Advocate versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell WITH CRL. A. 529 of 2014 GURDEEP SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Vikas Gautam, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell WITH CRL. A. 607 of 2014 SUKHVINDER SINGH @ SUKHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI: Surender Singh, Special Cell CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1102.2015 Introduction 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21 st December 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS in SC No.82 of 2008 convicting Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga (Accused No.1) (A-1) (Appellant in Crl.A. No.527 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21 (c) and 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This appeal has been filed against the OIO No. 11/ADJ/RSS/2004 dated 22-6-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs AIR Cargo (Import & General), New Delhi.2. The appellants imported certain medical equipments by availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. The benefit under the above said Notification was availed on the strength of the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) issued by the Director General, Health Services (DGHS). The DGHS, in his letter dated 12-12-1997 cancelled the above said CDEC issued to the appellants based on the Supreme Court's decision in "Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors. ". Consequent to the cancellation of the CDEC, the Revenue initiated action against the appellants by way of Show Cause Notice. The Adjudicating Authority, in his order dated 22-6-2004, confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 30,57,789/-. Further, a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- were also imposed. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ164CAT
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to quash and cancel the suspension order dated 11.10.1989, Memorandum of charges, Enquiry Officer's report, the dismissal order, the order rejecting the appeal with a direction to the respondents to issue orders under FR 54 declaring that the period of suspension till the period of dismissal be treated as period of duty for all purposes including pay, pension, leave etc., with all benefits.2. The applicant while working as Inspector of Income Tax on 5.8.1988, CBI, SPE, Mumbai Searched the residence of the applicant and reported his findings for further action. On 11.10.1989, respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Income Tax, placed the applicant under suspension under Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. On 12.10.1989 memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served on applicant. The applicant approached the Tribunal by O.A. 685/91 with a prayer that order of suspension may b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)48ITD1(Delhi)
1. While Revenue is in appeal, assessee is in cross objection for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Several common issues have been raised both in the appeals and the cross objections preferred by the assessee. Therefore, these are combined together and disposed of by this order.2. One of the issues relates to the valuation of a factory building held by M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills. Assessee is a joint Hindu family and a partner in M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills. According to WTO, the valuation of the factory building shown in the balance-sheet of the partnership firm at Rs. 3,79,178 was a case of under-valuation. Land occupied by the factory building was taken at Rs. 12,334 while the value of the building was shown at Rs. 3,79,178. Thus the total value of the building shown at Rs. 3,91,512 was considered an under-valuation by the WTO. He, therefore, referred to the Valuation Cell the valuation of the factory building of the said partnership concern. Valuation Cell p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Information Commission CIC
IntheCentralInformationCommission at NewDelhiFileNo.CIC/AD/A/2011/001864 DateofHearing :October5,2011 DateofDecision:October5,2011Parties:Appellant ShriPradeepRaj 372E,MandirMarg, Chajjupur,Shahdara, Delhi110032 TheAppellantwaspresent. Respondents OfficeoftheCommissionerofIndustries GovernmentofNCTofDelhi 419UdyogSadan,Patparganj, Delhi Respondentswerenotpresent.InformationCommissioner:Mrs.AnnapurnaDixit___________________________________________________________________IntheCentralInformationCommission at NewDelhiFileNo:CIC/AD/A/2011/001864 ORDER Background1. TheApplicantfiledhisRTIapplicationdated15.03.2011withthePIO,OfficeoftheCommissionerofIndustries,NewDelhiseekinginformationagainst10itemsinrespectofregistrationofDelhi Paralympic Table Tennis Association. These queries also included some other general informationabouttheregistrationofthesociety/association.Thisapplicationwasrepliedtoby thePIOon27.04.2011andwasconsideredbytheAppellateAuthorityon26.05.2011,inresponse totheA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Prigg v. Pennsylvania - 41 U.S. 539 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 539 539 (1842) Prigg v. Pennsylvania 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus A writ of error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, brought under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, to revise the judgment of that Court on a case involving the construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. Edward Prigg, a citizen of the State of Maryland, was indicted for kidnapping in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of York County, Pennsylvania, for having forcibly taken and carried away from that county to the State of Maryland a negro woman named Margaret Morgan with the design and intention of her being held, sold, and disposed of as a slave for life, contrary to a statute of Pennsylvania passed on the twenty-sixth day of March, 1826. Edward Prigg pleaded not guilty, and the jury found a special verdict on which judgment was...
Tag this Judgment!