Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-25-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR207; 2002(84)ECC46; 2002(142)ELT319(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Board for short) dated 7-4-1998 and consequent show cause notice dated 10-8-1998 alleging therein that the Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Century Rayon has wilfully suppressed the fact of manufacture of 'Cinder' with an intention to evade payment of excise duty (duty for short) and evaded duty to the tune of Rs. 12,39,350/- and why the same be not recovered from them with penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short) framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short).FACTS IN BRIEF:The 1st petitioners herein are the Division of Century Textile Industries Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods, having its factory, inter alia, at Shahad, Taluka - Kalyan, Dist. Thane. The 2nd petitioner is the Vice President (Finance) of the first Petitioner/Company.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-04-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1706; 2002(81)ECC22; 2002(141)ELT593(SC); JT2002(3)SC551; 2002(3)SCALE349; (2002)4SCC297; [2002]2SCR945; 2002(128)SCT349(SC); [2002]128STC349(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act'), the only question that falls for adjudication is whether Karbate Tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with Phenolic resin which are parts of Heat exchangers are classifiable under Tariff Item: sub-heading 6815.10 in First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short 'Tariff Act') as held by the Revenue, or under sub-heading 8419.50 as claimed by the assessee- importer.2. Factual scenario needs to be noted in brief. Orders were placed by the assessee on a foreign manufacturer for supply of 14700 Karbate Tubes which were supplied during April and July, 1992. An order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraising Group III) classifying the goods under Chapter heading 68.15 and sub-headings 6815.10, whereby the demand raised by the Appraiser was confirmed. Appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. Matter was carried...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-08-2002
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)225; 98(2002)DLT764; 2002(64)DRJ68; (2002)IIILLJ447Del
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashment of the complaint filed on 29th October 1997 by the State (through Inspector of Factories), respondent No. 2 and the summons dated 18th November 1997 issued by a Metropolitan Magistrate, respondent No. 4. 2. Complaint (copy at pages 69 to 70 on the file) was filed by respondent No. 2 against N.K. Chaubey alleging that Container Corporation of India Ltd is a factory under section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') and N.K. Chaubey, accused being proprietor/ partner/director thereof is an occupier within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Act. Factory situated at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi was inspected by the Inspector of Factories on 29th September 1997 at 12 noon and breaches as detailed in para 4 of the complaint were noticed. Accused was, thus, guilty of contravening Rule 11-A of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 read with Sections 6 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-01-2002
Reported in : 2002ACJ764
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. We propose to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment (though claim petitions were decided separately by the learned Tribunal below), as these arose out of the same accident.2. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma has prayed for setting aside the impugned awards passed in all these cases. According to him, the vehicle in question involved was a truck bearing registration No. HIB 4355 meant primarily for carriage of goods. It was registered as such and was also adapted for carriage of goods and not of passengers.3. After the matter was heard, learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance on the following facts:4. That the truck bearing registration No. HIB 4355 belonged to Mansa Devi respondent. Rattan Chand was its driver at the time of its accident. And he is the son of Mansa Devi, owner. On the fateful day, i.e., 8.5.1997, when it met with the accident, it was deployed to carry barat from village Baroha t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-02-2002
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD806; 2002(1)ALT594
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Thewrit petitioner is the appellant in this appeal.The appeal is directed against the order dated 7-12-2001 passed in WP No. 24939 of 2001 directing the appellant/petitioner to assail the subject-matter of dispute before the Regulatory Authority under Indian Electricity Act. The writ petition was thus disposed of in view of the availability of alternative remedy.2. On 1-3-2001 the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Central Power Distribution Corporation of A.P. Limited, (A.P. Transco) Sangareddy, after inspection of the premises in question assessed the energy consumption during the period of default in the meter and as per condition No. 22.3.3.3. of terms and conditions of supply the appellant was issued notice and requested to make his representation, if any, about the billing of amount of Rs. 1,02,550/- for the period from September, 2000 to 23-2-2001 to the Divisional Engineer (Operation), Sangareddy within fifteen days from the said notice. At the ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-02-2002
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)367; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)403; 2002CriLJ2990
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The revision petitioner assails the order dated 12-6-2000 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada, in Crl. M. P. No. 286 of 2000 in S.C. No. 159 of 1999.2. The revision petitioner is A. 1 in the said case and has been facing trial for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondent herein laid the charge sheet against four accused before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawda, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged, inter alia, in the charge sheet that on 13-7-1997 at 22.30 hours when the deceased by name Naveenram along with Boena Sivarama-krishna alias Nani reached the house of the deceased on a scooter, A. 1 to A.4 surrounded the deceased and the said Nani. A.I after having enquired with the said Nani as to who among them was Naveenram and on being informed by Nani that the deceased was the said person, took out a knif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-02-2002
Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT179
A.K. Mishra, J. 1. Petitioners are workers' union. The prayer made in the instant writ petition is to quash the award passed by the arbitrator Shri Digvijay Singh, Chief Minister of M.P. relating to dispute of removal of daily wages employees.Main question for consideration in the writ petition is whether Public Works Department and other departments of State of M.P. can be treated 'industry' under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The services of the daily rated workmen employed in Madhya Pradesh after 31-12-1988 in different departments of State of M.P. and various local authorities were ordered to be terminated by the Govt. of M.P., a memorandum (P-1) dated 14the February, 2000 was issued for removing all the daily wage employees appointed after 31-12-88 on the ground that a memorandum dated 15-9-89 was issued which contained direction not to fill up the posts which were vacant as on 1st January, 1988 and the ban on making the appointments out of contingency fund was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-02-2002
Reported in : II(2002)ACC398,2002ACJ874
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'H.R.T.C.'), has preferred this appeal against the award dated 9.1.2001, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2), Shimla in M.A.C. No. 94-S/2 of 1995. By means of impugned award a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 has been awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, with 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 27.10.1995.2. It may be noted that H.R.T.C. is the owner of bus bearing registration No. HP 07-1766, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the claimants before the Tribunal below being parents of deceased Jagmohan Beakta. Respondent No. 3, Surinder Beakta is the owner of Gypsy taxi No. HP 02-1348. This taxi was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. According to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 6.9.1995 deceased was driving aforesaid taxi from Sanjauli to Shimla side along with passengers. Suddenly the vehicle swerved towards its right side. It was brought to a halt by the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1687; 2002(2)KarLJ236
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for contesting respondents 6, 7, 8(a) and 10(b) though the other contesting respondents 1, 2(a) and 2(b), 3 to 5, 9, 10(a), 10(d) and 10(e) are served long back and have remained unrepresented.2. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal, Yelandur Taluk, dated 19-2-1989 granting occupancy rights to the contesting respondents 1 to 10 herein. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner-Sri Sridhar and the deceased petitioner Srinivasa Rao who is the father of Sridhar were the landlords of the lands in dispute and it is also not in dispute that these lands have been leased to respondents 1 to 10 almost 30 to 40 years back.3. After coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended by Karnataka Act 1 of 1974 these respondents have filed an application in Form 7 praying for grant of occupancy rights in respect of these lands leased to them. On issuance of no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-04-2002
Reported in : 2002IIIAD(Delhi)995; AIR2003Delhi32
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. By this common judgment both the suits mentioned above can conveniently be disposed, since the question involved by and larger in both the petitions are identical. thereforee, they are being taken up together. Facts are being mentioned from Suit No. 3078-A/96. 2. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. (for short the applicant) seeks the award of the arbitrator to be made a rule of the court and for a decree in terms of the award to be passed. The applicant contends that he does not wish to file any objection to the award dated 15.12.1996. In pursuance of the notice having been issued the objector (the Food Corporation of India) has filed the objections. The award is purported to be assailed on various grounds to be considered hereinafter. Needless to state that in the reply filed all the objections and the pleas raised are being controverter. 3. On 22nd March, 1999 this court had framed the following issues:-1. Whether the impugned award is liable to be set aside for th...
Tag this Judgment!