Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(72)ECC248; 1996(88)ELT638(SC); (1997)10SCC402
ORDER1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal has held that the monomer castings produced by the respondents directly from caprolactum are not classifiable as articles of plastic under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff but are classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68. In doing so, the Tribunal has, inter alia, relied upon the Tariff Advice issued on 27th November, 1980, by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which states, 'the Board is of the opinion that monomer castings produced directly from caprolactum are not classifiable as articles of plastics under Item 15A(2) of Central Excise Tariff and the same are properly classifiable under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff'.2. Having regard to the Tariff Advice which was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, it is difficult to see how the Collector could have held otherwise, now the Revenue could have argued otherwise b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)10SCC593
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedNotification declaring rates of sales tax by Chief Commissioner of Union territory challenged on ground that power delegated to President cannot be further delegated. Supreme Court held notification valid as Chief Commissioner acted as medium for exercising power of President....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)IVLLJ993SC
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedPetition filed for execution of settlement deed under Article 32. Supreme Court held that settlement deed cannot be executed under Article 32 as other remedies were open for petitioner for such purpose. Time spent in this case will be excluded from limitation period mentioned for such remedy....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(72)ECC252; 1996(88)ELT641(SC); (1997)10SCC379
ORDERS.P. Bharucha and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.1. The order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under challenge dealt with the Pearl Barley, Purity Barley and Robinson's Patent Barley manufactured by the appellants. We are concerned in this appeal only with the product Robinson's Patent Barley. 2. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal and at all earlier stages that the said product was a 'preparation with a basis of starch' and, therefore, outside the purview of the exemption granted by an exemption notification dated 1st March, 1970, issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereby the Central Government had exempted prepared or preserved foods falling under Item 1B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, other than those specified in the Schedule thereto annexed, from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. Item 14 of the Schedule referred to 'preparations with a basis of flour, of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)121; JT1996(9)SC669; 1996(7)SCALE958; (1996)11SCC234; [1996]Supp8SCR116
G.B. Pattanaik. J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 19th April, 1990, passed in O.A. No. 134 of 1986 as well as the order of the said Tribunal dated 3.9.1990 passed by the said Tribunal on an application for review.3. The appellant had been appointed to the post of a peon in Class IV in the year 1976 in the office of the Special Treasury, Berhampur. He was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk in the year 1982 which is a post in class III. By order dated 18.10.1986 he was reverted to his substantive post of peon in class IV. He therefore, challenged the order of reversion before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal came to hold that the promotion of the appellant to the post of junior clerk was temporarily made without prejudice to the claim of seniority of others and the said promotion being contrary to the statutory rules and not having conferred any right on the appellant the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)IVLLJ997SC
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedPetition filed by appellant challenging Order made by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Petition dismissed by High Court on ground of laches and no cogent explanation given for delay. Appellant filed application for review petition. Order of High Court set aside as delay was caused due to tendency of review petition which should have been taken into consideration for calculating period of delay....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)108; AIR1997SC585; [1997(75)FLR29]; JT1996(10)SC64; 1996(7)SCALE898; (1996)11SCC319; [1996]Supp8SCR69
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The award of the National Industrial Tribunal Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') adjudicating on the demands of the unions of five Bangalore based public sector undertakings for parity in minimum wage with the minimum wage payable to the employees of another public sector undertaking namely; Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BHEL') is challenged by the managements as well as the workmen in these appeals.3. The minimum wage of the lowest Category of workmen of five Bangalore based public sector undertakings namely; Bharat Electronics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'B.E.L.'), Bharat Earth Movers Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'B.E.M.L.'), Indian Telephone Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'I.T.I.'), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'H.A.L.') and Hindustan Machine Tools Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'H.M.T.') was the same in all these public sector undertakings. By se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)IVLLJ994SC
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedRespondent terminated from services as she had crossed age of superannuation. Appeal before District Development Officer dismissed. Respondent raised labour dispute in Labour Court concealing facts of earlier litigation. Respondent reinstated with back wages. Appeal dismissed by High Court. Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court on ground of concealment of facts and failure of High Court to take into consideration documents filed by appellants....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)IVLLJ996SC
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedPetition filed by appellant against decision of Labour Court dismissed by High Court in limine. Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court and reverted matter back for reconsideration as High Court decided matter without going into merits of petition....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)386; JT1996(10)SC58; 1996(7)SCALE865; (1996)10SCC729; [1996]Supp8SCR99; [1997]104STC94a(SC)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These are appeals from the judgments and orders of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal to which writ petitions filed in the Calcutta High Court by the appellants were transferred.2. The position being common, the facts that are referred to are the facts of C.A. No. 1622 of 1990, where Hindustan Sheet Metal Limited is the appellant.3. The State Trading Corporation entered into a contract with the Government Trading Corporation of Iran where under 550 metric tonnes (5% more or less) of unblended Assam tea were to be supplied. In turn, S.T.C. entered into a contract on 4th August, 1986, with the appellants for the tea, to which a copy of S.T.C.'s contract with the Iranian buyer was annexed.,4. Pursuant to the contract between S.T.C. and the appellants, the appellants purchased from tea auctions the tea to be supplied under the aforesaid contracts. The deliveries of the tea were made to the Iranian buyer under the aforesaid contracts. In June, 1987, the appellants receive...
Tag this Judgment!