Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj372; 2002(5)WLC243
Mathur, J.1. This Reference Application under Section 35H of the Centra! Excise Act, 19-14 is made by the M/s. Aditya Cement, a Unit of Grasim Industries Limited seeking questions of law as framed in para 14-E arising out of the order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'.2. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the department that the question of law, which is sought to be called for reference for the Tribunal has been answered by the Apex Court in Jaypee Rewa Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise (1). Though it is agreed by both the learned counsel for the parties that the question involved has been settled by the Apex Court and, as such, the Reference can be straightway answered but the requirement of law is that this court will have to first call the statement of case from the Tribunal and refer the question of law. Thus, this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(141)ELT623(Raj); 2003(2)WLN258
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This reference application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is made by the M/s. Aditya Cement, a Unit of Grasim Industries Limited seeking questions of law as framed in Para 14E arising out of the order dated 21-5-2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'.2. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Counsel for the department that the question of law, which is sought to be called for reference for the Tribunal has been answered by the Apex Court in Jaypee Rewa Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in : 2001ECR193(SC) . Though it is agreed by both the learned Counsel for the parties that the question involved has been settled by the Apex Court and, as such, the Reference can be straightway answered but the requirement of law is that this Court will have to first call the statement of case from the Tribunal and refer the ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj546
Panwar, J.1. This is appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that; a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 24 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant firm had booked bales of cloth on 23.7.1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindaun City vide PWB No. 699790 dt.23.7.1986. PWB was 'self'. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23,958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003ACJ1163; AIR2002Raj226; 2002(4)WLC748; 2002(4)WLN41
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 14-11-1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that: a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 14 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant-firm had booked bales of cloth on 23-7-1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindatin City vide PWB No. 699790, dt. 23-7-1986. PWB was self. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23.958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN701
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number of grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenue at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenue to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of Advisory Board the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLC456
R. Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer Under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number or grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenu at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenu to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of advisory Board the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN615
Balia, J.1. This petition has come up for consideration for the reason that the parole application filed by the appellant has been rejected primarily on the ground that the prisoner in question is resident of a place which is out-side the State of Rajasthan. He has already been denied parole. For this reason the petitioner has also referred to Article 21 and Article 14 stating that denying a parole on the ground of residence alone results in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and 21. This necessitated examining the validity of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958.2. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by the appellant in his application, who is not represented by the counsel, we issued notice to Advocate General for assisting the Court in the matter.3. The Advocate General has urged that under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules'), there is no absolute bar ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(142)ELT289(Raj); 2003(1)WLN332
ORDERN.N. Mathur, JJ. - 1. This reference petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is at the instance of the department seeking reference of the following question of law arising from the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 6-12-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal)] :- 'Whether the explosive used for blasting of mines for obtaining ores and not in the manufacture of Zinc, are eligible for exemption under Notification No.191/87, dated 4-8-1987?'2. The respondent Hindustan Zinc Ltd. is a public undertaking. The Company mines Zinc and Lead ore from its own mines at Rajpura, Maton and Zawar. The Company was granted L-6 licence to obtain goods falling under Chapters 28, 29, 36 and 38 without payment of duty for use in the manufacture of Zinc and Lead concentrate in terms of Notification No. 191/87, dated 4-8-1987. The said notification reads as follows :-'Exemption to goods falling within Chapters 28,29,36 and 38[Add on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR988]; RLW2003(1)Raj246; 2002(3)WLN61; 2002(3)WLN61
Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition has been registered on a letter of convict Om Prakash Resident of village Kherampura Police Station Adampur District-Hissar (Haryana). He was arrested in September, 1995. He was tried on the charge for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by judgment dated 29.1.1999 convicted him for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner. He has undergone a sentence of about six years. He submitted an application before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner for consideration of his case by Advisory Committee for release on parole. The District Magistrate obtained the police report from Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Officer, Hissar. The Superintendent of Police has sent an adverse report stating that if he is released, tension may crop up in the village. The Sub-Divisional Officer has verified that the house of the applicant is required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]258ITR548(Raj); 2002(3)WLN553; 2002(3)WLN553
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated July 27, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, directing the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, to grant registration to the applicant-society under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. This appeal has been admitted by the order of this court dated July 24, 2001, on the following substantial question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that on the proper construction of aims and objects of the assessee-association as disclosed in its constitution fall within the purview of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act so as to entitle the assessee-society to registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act ?' 3. The respondent-assessee is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, in the name of 'Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Soc...
Tag this Judgment!