Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(89)ECC727; 1997(89)ELT441(SC); (1997)10SCC338
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal took the view that stencil skin was classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68 for the purposes of excise duty and not under Item 17(2) which covers paper and paper board, all sorts, including coated paper. In so doing the Tribunal relied upon a Tariff Advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 20-11-1978. The Tariff Advice stated that the levy of duty on coated paper for making stencil paper had been under examination and it had been decided that coated paper was an intermediate product which did not come into the market either to be bought or sold. It was used in the manufacture of stencils and should be considered not excisable. 2. There is a Trade Notice dated 1-3-1976, cited by learned Counsel for the respondent, that expressly deals with stencil paper; it states that stencil paper should be treated as an article of stationery and, therefore, outside the purview of Item 17. 3. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)138CTR(SC)193
ORDERB. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :The order of the Settlement Commission dt. 15th Oct., 1980 has given rise to these appeals. Kuldeep Industrial Corporation had filed an application under s. 245C of the IT Act in respect of three asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The Settlement Commission refused to admit the case relating to asst. yr. 1977-78 for settlement, against which the assessee has filed Civil Appeals 233-35 of 1982 (Civil Appeals 236-237 of 1982). The Settlement Commission has, however, admitted the case relating to the other two assessment years for settlement, against which the Revenue has preferred Civil Appeals 238-239 of 1982.2. During the previous years relevant to the said three assessment years, the assessee received substantial quantities of stainless steel sheets from M. M. T. C. claiming to be a manufacturer of sterilizers. It filed returns for the said three assessment years disclosing losses in a sum of Rs. 1,31,143 (for asst. yr. 1977-78), Rs. 39,939 (for asst....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3631; [1997]223ITR840(SC); JT1996(11)SC207; 1996(9)SCALE343; (1997)3SCC377; [1996]Supp9SCR782
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The order of the Settlement Commission dated October 15, 1980 has given rise to these appeals, Kuldeep Industrial Corporation had filed an application under Section 245-C of the Income Tax Act in respect of three assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The Settlement Commission refused to admit the case relating to assessment year 1977-78 for settlement, against which the assessee has filed Civil Appeals 233-35 of 1982 (Civil Appeals 236-237 of 1982). The Settlement Commission has, however, admitted the case relating to the other two assessment years for settlement, against which the Revenue has preferred Civil Appeals 238-239 of 1982.2. During the previous years relevant to the said three assessment years, the assessee received substantial quantities of stainless steel sheets from M.M.T.C. claiming to be a manufacturer of sterilizers. It filed returns for the three assessment years disclosing losses in a sum of Rs. 1,31,113 (for A.Y. 1977-78), Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(1)SC286; 1996(9)SCALE724; (1997)1SCC733; [1996]Supp9SCR808
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Patna High Court, made on December 10, 1984 in CWJC No. 5491/84 dismissing the writ petition in limine.2. The admitted facts are that Sukhdeo Rai is the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Gulabo Devi and others had purchased one Katha of land towards the east of the land of the appellants from Sukhdeo Rai by a sale deed executed on December 31, 1979 which was got registered on February 8, 1980. The appellants had filed an application for pre-emption of the land on the ground that he, being the adjoining raiyat, by operation of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Lands Ceiling Act, was entitled to pre-emption of the said land from the contesting respondent. The Tribunal held in favour of the appellant and ultimately the Collector in the proceedings dated August 11, 1984 held against the appellants. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine, as stated earlier. The question, therefore, is: whether the view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)641; 1997(57)ECC248; 1997(93)ELT10(SC); (1997)3GLR2487(SC); 1996(9)SCALE245; (1997)2SCC275; [1996]Supp9SCR796; [1997]106STC536(SC)
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. These appeals arise out of judgments and orders of the High Court of Gujarat. The principal judgment was delivered in the case of Suhrid Geigy Ltd., Ahmedabad v. Union of India and Ors. (1980) E.L.T. 538, which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 1780/80, and was followed in the other matters. We shall deal with the principal judgment first.2. The appellants manufacture, inter alia, the following medicinal preparations:----------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. No. Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Xylocaine 1% Plain vial 2. ' 2% Plain vial 3. ' 1% Adrenaline vial 4. ' 2% Adrenaline vial 5. ' 2% Adrenaline Cartridge 6. ' 5% heavy ampoule 7. ' 4% topical vial 8. ' 5% ointment tube 9. ' 2% Jelly tube 10. ' 2% viscous vial 11. Butazolidin 3 ml. ampoule 12. Irgapyrin 3 ml. ampoule 13. Irgapyrin 5 ml. ampoule ----------------------------------------------------------------- The first ten medicinal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC692; [1997]224ITR558(SC); JT1997(1)SC218; 1996(9)SCALE256; (1997)3SCC481
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.Civil Appeal Nos. 2952-54 of 1979:1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court answering the reference made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The question referred was:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the penalty to be levied for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 should be as per the provision of Section 18(1)(a) as they stood before amendment with effect from 1.4.1965 (sic).The High Court answered the said question in favour of the assessee following the earlier decision of the said Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. R.D. Chand : [1977]108ITR787(AP) 2. In these appeals, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the aforesaid question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee following the decision of this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)582; AIR1997SC699; (1997)3GLR2306; (1997)IILLJ724SC; 1996(9)SCALE42; (1996)6SCC756; [1996]Supp9SCR726; 1997(1)LC243(SC)
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. I am the child.All the world waits for my coming.All the earth watches with interest to see what I shall become.Civilization hangs in the balance,For what I am, the world of tomorrow will be.1 am the child. You hold in your hand my destiny.You determine, largely, whether I shall succeed or fail,Give me, I pray you, these things that make for happiness.Train me, I beg you, that I may be a blessing to the world.Manie Gene ColeIt may be that the aforesaid appeal lies at the back of the saying that 'child is the father of man'. To enable fathering of a valiant and vibrant man, the child must be groomed well in the formative years of his life. He must receive education, acquire knowledge of man and materials and blossom in such an atmosphere that on reaching age, he is found to be a man with a mission, a man who matters so for as the society is concerned.2. Our Constitution makers, wise and sagacious as they were, had known that India of their vision would not be a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)635; AIR1997SC1048; JT1996(11)SC725; 1996(9)SCALE281; (1997)3SCC185; 1997(1)SLJ171(SC); 1997(1)LC428(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated April 4, 1996 in Original Application No. 1621 of 1994 filed by M. Goverdhan Rao, respondent No. 1 in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant'). The matter relates to appointment on the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service.3. In 1992 the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') notified vacancies of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and invited applications for the said post. In response to the said notification the applicant submitted his application. The applicant belongs to a backward class in Group 'D' and his application was entertained as a local candidate of Zone V. Among the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is Degree ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)429; (1997)138CTR(SC)214; [1997]223ITR825(SC); JT1997(1)SC155; 1996(9)SCALE225; (1997)1SCC352; [1996]Supp9SCR775
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Clause (b) of Section 40 of the Income Tax Act specifies one of the amounts which shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. As it stood at the relevant time, it read thus:40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profit and gains of business or profession', -(b) in the case of any firm, any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration made by the firm to any partner of the firm.Explanation 1 : Where interest is paid by a firm to any partner of the firm who has also paid interest to the firm, the amount of interest to be disallowed under this clause shall be limited to the amount by which the payment of interest by the firm to the partner exceeds the payment of interest by the partner to the firm.Explanation 2: Where an individual is a partner in a fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)3GLR2514; JT1997(1)SC378; 1997(1)SCALE155; (1997)2SCC490; [1996]Supp9SCR820
1. The main appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat, made on March 1/4, 1985 in Special Civil Application No. 4459/84 and batch. The other appeals relate to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Woman Roke and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1984Bom345 . The Gujarat High Court has followed the decision of the Bombay High Court. In all the cases, the facts are not in dispute.2. The respective Legislatures brought Section 6-A in Bombay and the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977 providing for levy and collection of tax on entertainment by Video Cassette Recorder or Player on Television or Video scope in any place of entertainment or omnibus etc. at the rates specified therein. The latter Act came into force w.e.f. June 14, 1984. The Government made Rules by name, Gujarat Cinema (Regulation & Exhibition by Video) Rules, 1984 (for short, the 'Rules'). The Rules have come into force on the same date. The respondents filed the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!