Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Decided on : Mar-07-2008
1. Heard both sides in respect of MA & Appeal filed by the applicant/appellant Commissioner and the Appeal filed by the appellant importer.2. In the Miscellaneous Application, it has been stated by the applicant Commissioner that the submission made by the appellant importers before the Tribunal regarding non-drawal of samples by Customs officials, is not true and factually correct and that the appellant importers have misled the Hon'ble CESTAT to get a favourable Stay Order. He further states that the samples were drawn in presence of the authorised CHA of the appellants and forwarded to the Assistant Drug Controller, which was duly acknowledged by him. He has also stated that in respect of importation of drugs it is a mandatory and statutory obligation on the part of Customs Authorities to ascertain as to whether the drugs under import comply with the standards laid down in the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. No clearance is allowed until and unless that procedure i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-07-2008
Reported in : (2008)4MLJ906
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. (i) The writ petitioner has purchased 0.40 cents of land in Survey No. 35/4 in Keelpathi Village, Kammapuram Union, Cuddalore District in the year 2002 and according to him after purchase he has constructed a house measuring an extent of 300 sq. ft., in the same year after obtaining permission from the Village Panchayat. He has also got electricity service connection and living in the building from 2002 with his family.(ii) The second respondent by invoking powers under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Act 10/99) sought the petitioner's reply for the proposed acquisition of the abovesaid property. It is admitted that the petitioner has consented for acquisition, however, on the basis that there will be a rehabilitation and resettlement along with the compensation.(iii) According to the petitioner, the second respondent has recorded the same and promised to provide suitable rehabilitation. Thereafter, a notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1661; JT2008(13)SC648; 2008(3)SCALE416; 2008AIRSCW1882
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These Appeals arising out of a common judgment.2. We would, at the outset, place on record that three trials were held one after the other and the judgments therein were delivered also one after the other in relation to an incident which took place one after the other but wherefor only one First Information Report had been lodged.3. On or about 30th June, 1999 at 2.30 p.m., Rachhpal Singh along with Sawinder Singh and Hardev Singh had an altercation with one Resham Singh S/o Subeg Singh. Rachhpal Singh inflicted a knife injury on the right wrist and chest of Resham Singh. He picked up the knife from which was with Pargat Singh II S/o Shangara Singh who was accompanying him. Resham Singh fell down. Hardev Singh and Sawinder Singh also allegedly inflicted 'dang' blows on Resham Singh. An alarm was raised by Resham Singh's father Subeg Singh. Resham Singh died on the spot.The said incident is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2007.4. As an off shoot to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-2008
Reported in : JT2008(13)SC613; 2008(4)SCALE125; (2008)13VST538(SC); 2008AIRSCW2233
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It runs a distillery. It obtained a licence under the trade name of 'Normandy Breweries and Distilleries' for manufacture of liquor under the Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077).2. It was registered as a dealer both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (the Act) as also under the Central Sales Tax Act.3. It demised the factory in favour of one 'Eagle Distillery (P) Ltd.' (Lessee) by a Deed of Lease dated 1st December, 1984, wherefor requisite approval was granted by the Government of Kerala on or about 27th April, 1985.4. The Sales Tax Authorities were intimated thereabout by communications dated 4th May, 1985 and 30th May, 1985.The said letters read as under:'4th May, 1985I am writing this letter to inform you that I have leased out the Distillery unit in Cheemeni, Kasargod District to Eagle Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., having their registered office at Bangalore, Karnataka, for a period of 5 years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2008
1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sunglo Industries Pvt.Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') are engaged in the manufacture of printing ink, organic composite solvents and thinner falling for classification under Chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. They filed a declaration under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the above mentioned products, claiming the benefit of SSI Notification 1/93-CE dated 28/2/1993 as amended and effected clearance of the said goods under the said notification in 1996-97. Intelligence was gathered by the Revenue that they had manufactured and cleared goods at concessional rate of duty by claiming exemption under the notification though the goods were affixed with the brand name SUNGLO' which did not belong to them but belonged to M/s. Sericol India Pvt. Ltd. As the benefit of SSI notification is not available to a manufacturer who manufactures and clears the goods carrying brand name of an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Mar-05-2008
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.1. The instant appeal on behalf of Bagar Mahato and his son Ram Bharosa Mahato is against the judgment dated 7-8-1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1989 whereby he held the appellant No. 1 guilty for committing offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. P.Ws. 4 and 7 are ordered to be paid compensation at the rate of 1,500/- each. Appellant No. 2 was convicted under Section 379, I.P.C. and after being given benefit of Section 360, Cr. P.C. he was released on admonition.3. Fardbeyan of Mahanth Mahto (P.W. 7) is the basis of the prosecution case. His Fardbeyan was recorded on 8-1-1988 at 6 p.m. at M. J. K. Hospital, Bettiah in which he alleged that on 8-1-1988 at 1.00 p.m. Bagar Mahto armed with Gara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-05-2008
Reported in : II(2008)DMC596
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.1. By this common judgment, two criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1997 preferred by Shunti @ Raja, Om Parkash and Rajni and Criminal Appeal No. 865-SB of 1997 preferred by Om Parkash son of Narpat Ram will be decided.2. By the common judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, all these four accused i.e. appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 306, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.3. FIR Ex. PK was lodged at the instance of Smt. Darshana Devi P.W. 1. She has stated in the FIR that she has got six sons and two daughters. His eldest son is Uttam Chand and younger to him is Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar was married with Rajni, appellant, about three years before the occurrence in Kalyan Nagar, Jagadhari. It is stated that from the marriage two daughters and one son was born. She further sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-04-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1643
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Javed Masood and Syed Najib Hasan, appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, who vide judgment dated July 25, 2003, convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302 IPC:Both to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.FACTS AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that on May 25, 1999 at 1 PM Sub Inspector of Police Station Kotwali Tonk recorded Parcha Bayan (Ex.P12) of Chuttu @ Nizamuddin (Pw. 5) wherein he stated that on the said day around 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Mar-04-2008
1. Dhanlaxmi Lease Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Dhanlaxmi" or "the company") is an Ahmedabad based finance company which was incorporated as a public limited company on February 24, 1995 with the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. The business activities of Dhanlaxmi comprises of financing, hire purchase and leasing. It came out with a public issue of Rs 31 lakh equity shares of Rs 10/- each for cash at par aggregating to Rs 310 lakhs. The issue opened on November 21, 1995 and closed on November 24, 1995. The issue was oversubscribed to the extent of 2.5 times as per the 3 day report filed with Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI") by the Lead Manager, Monarch Projects and Finmarkets Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Monarch").2. SEBI received a complaint from the Tax Payers Protection Council, Ahmedabad on December 21, 1995 alleging that multiple/fictitious applications had been made in the public issue of Dhanlaxmi and the same had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-04-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)MPHT326
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction dated 26-7-93 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 279/92, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34, IPC sentencing them to undergo rigorous life imprisonment.2. As per the prosecution case, deceased Suresh and accused persons where residing at Village Khamlaha. Deceased had accompanied the accused persons in the night, he did not come back to the house. Consequently, Kishore Singh and Munnalal went to the house of Manohar to ask about the whereabouts of Suresh. For several days they inquired from Manoharlal but he expressed ignorance as to the whereabout of deceased Suresh. They also inquired from co-accused Nandlal. He also expressed ignorance as to the whereabouts of deceased Suresh. The prosecution further alleged that on 3-8-92, one Sangram Singh, son of Kamal Singh found the dead body...
Tag this Judgment!