Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-06-1985
Reported in : 1986(9)ECC227; 1986(24)ELT245(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The appellant-company, who is the write petitioner, is a manufacturer of certain ointments which are sold by it at retail prices at Rs. 4.50, Rs. 3.37 and Rs. 3.00. These are ointments for skin troubles, which admittedly are patent and proprietary medicines as defined under Entry 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Admittedly, these products were subjected to excise duty only in 1961. It is not now in dispute that even after the excise duty came to be levied for the first time since 1961, the medicinal products are sold by the Company at the same old price. In other words, the excise duty paid by the Company is on the footing that the prices of the different sizes of tubes are Rs. 4.50, Rs. 3.37 and Rs. 3.00 respectively. 2. A Notification came to be issued on 8th October, 1966, being Notification No. 161/66, dated 8th October, 1966 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-02-1985
Reported in : (1986)1MLJ307
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of writ appeals W.A.Nos. 255 to 257 of 1977, W.A. No. 242 of 1977, W.P. No. 2878, and W.P. No. 2941 of 1978.2. The question involved in the writ appeals relates to the determination of compensation in respect of surplus lands under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu 1961 Act. The question is whether the compensation for the lands declared as surplus has to be determined in accordance with the rates prescribed in Schedule HI, as it was on the day on which the Tamil Nadu 1961 Act came into force, that is , 6.4.1960 or in accordance with the schedule which was amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1972 which came into force from 1st of March, 1972. W.P.Nos. 1855, 1856 and 1858 of 1974 which are filed by the original petitioners out of which W.A.No. 255 to 257 of 1977 arise and W.P.No. 2941 which is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No. 7002 of 1975 ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-14-1985
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Mad)354; [1986]159ITR381(Mad)
1. Freedom of speech and a free press are indispensable prerequisites of a democratic and free society. In fact, democracy without a free press is a contradiction in terms. It is through a free and responsible press that public opinion is moulded and grievances of individuals and groups ventilated. The commanding position of owners managers, editors and publishers of newspapers in a democratic set up has evils of its own.2. The doctrine of rule of law rests on the basic foundation and structure of a country's well-ordered government and its established courts of justice. Though it is the legislative wing of the Government that makes the law, there is yet a large body of common law based on customs and practices of the society which gives them the sanctity of law. In the ultimate analysis, it is the courts of justice that administer all these law and in their interpretative jurisdiction, they take note of the intendment of the legislature and often supply the omissions in the enacted la...
Tag this Judgment!