Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2542; 1996(56)ECC127; 1996(86)ELT177(SC); (1997)2GLR1696; JT1996(7)SC44; 1996(5)SCALE501; (1996)5SCC488; [1996]Supp4SCR183
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These are appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.2. The periods involved in the appeals are: 1st April, 1974 to 31st December, 1982 in Civil Appeal No. 5437 of 1990 and January 1983 to April, 1984 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5941-43 of 1990.3. By an Exemption Notification (No. 187/61) issued under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Government exempted raw naphtha falling under Item No.6 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, from the payment of excise duty in excess of Rs. 4.36 per kilolitre at 15 degrees Centigrade. The Exemption Notification applied 'in respect of such Raw Naphtha as is used in the manufacture of Ammonia provided such Ammonia is used elsewhere in the manufacture of fertilisers' and the procedure set out in Chapter-X of the said Rules was/ followed.4. The appellants manufacture urea, which is a fertiliser, at a plant at Kalol in the State of Gujar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)173; AIR1996SC2588; 1996(86)ELT186(SC); JT1996(7)SC627; 1996(5)SCALE582; (1996)10SCC46; [1996]Supp4SCR209
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. This appeal is in challenge of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) repelling the contention of the appellant that the commodity 'commercial plywood' processed by the appellant is not liable to excise duty as the duty was paid for the plywood before its processing.2. The case of the appellant - company is the following. Appellant is engaged in processing commercial plywood by applying Phenol Formaldehyde Resin under 100 per cent heat and pressure and coats the plywood with wire mesh, either on one side or on both sides so as to make it slip proof commercial plywood. The product is mostly used in body building of vehicles or for flooring etc. On 3.9.1986, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued show cause notice to the appellant company, in which it was stated that since non-slip plywood is a different product it is liable to duty as falling under sub-heading 4408-90 (Chapter 44 of the Schedule to the Centra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(88)ELT24(SC); (1997)6SCC81
ORDER1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Allahabad dismissing a Writ Petition filed by the appellants. 2. The appellants manufacture sugar at a factory at Laksar in Saharanpur District of the State of Uttar Pradesh. They are liable to pay excise duty and additional and special duties of excise. They made a claim for exemption within the provisions of an Exemption Notification dated 28th April, 1978, issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby free sugar and levy sugar produced in a sugar factory during the period 1st May, 1978 to 30th September, 1978 was exempt at the rate therein specified if it was in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years. On 6th October, 1978 an order was made by the Chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Kanpur, which stated that the appellants' rebate claim had been pre-audited as admissible under the said Notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)732; AIR1996SC2526; [1996(74)FLR2063]; (1997)2GLR1284; JT1996(7)SC181; 1996LabIC2248; (1996)IILLJ820SC; 1996(5)SCALE567; (1996)5SCC419; [1996]Supp4SCR214; 1996(3
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The short question is: whether the re-employment of retrenched workmen required by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') is confined only to the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who have been in continuous service for not less than one year The controversy arises in view of the wide meaning of 'retrenchment' given in its definition contained in Section 2(oo) of the Act to cover all kinds of terminations for any reason whatsoever. This wide meaning is settled by the decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Etc. Etc. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors. Etc. Etc. : (1990)IILLJ70SC . On behalf of the appellant (employer) it is contended that the meaning given in the definition of retrenchment contained in Section 2(oo) is to be read subject to the context and the context in Section 25-H indicates that the word 'retrenched' in Section 25-H h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)325; AIR1996SC2733; [1997(75)FLR82]; JT1996(10)SC175; 1996LabIC2433; 1996(5)SCALE678; (1996)9SCC677; [1996]Supp4SCR190; 1996(3)SLJ119(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. A learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the bunch-petitions filed by the respondents and quashed the promotions made by the Cauvery Gramina Bank, Mysore (the Bank) to the cadre of Senior Managers on the short ground that the guidelines issued to the Bank by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (the NABARD) were not followed while making the promotions. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge. The appellants - affected officers - have challenged by way of this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge and that of the Division Bench of the High Court.3. The Bank was sponsored by the State Bank of Mysore and established in October 1976 under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The NABARD was established in the year 1982 with a view to look after the agricultural and rural development in the country. The NABARD has been issuing guidelin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(2)ALD(Cri)361; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)269; 1996(3)Crimes85(SC); JT1996(7)SC6; 1996(5)SCALE523; (1996)9SCC766; [1996]Supp4SCR197
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Some eerie accusations have been made by a wife against her husband. Incestuous sexual abuse, incredulous ex facie, is being attributed to the husband. Police on her complaint conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the appellant, who has filed this Criminal Appeal by special leave as he did not succeed in his approach to the High Court at the F.J.R. stage itself.2. More details of the case are these:Appellant (Satish Mehra) and his wife (Anita Mehra) were living in New York ever since their marriage. They have three children among whom the eldest daughter -: (Nikita) was born on 2nd April, 1988. Before and after the birth of the children relationship between husband and wife was far from cordial. Husband alleged that his wife, in conspiracy with her father, had siphoned off a whopping sum from his bank deposits in India by forging his signature. He also alleged that his wife is suffering from some peculiar psychiatric condition. He approached a court at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)10; AIR1996SC2555; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)504; 1996CriLJ3581; 1996(3)Crimes114(SC); JT1996(7)SC74; 1996(5)SCALE544
ORDERFaizan Uddin J.1. These Criminal Appeals by the three appellants, namely, Bhagubhai Manilal, Chinubhai Manilal and Rajnikant Chhaganbhai have been directed against the common judgment dated 30.4.1984 passed by the High Court of Gujarat dismissing the Criminal Appeal Nos. 906/81, 907/81 and 1072/81 preferred by the appellants against their convictions under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code for which they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Additional City Sessions Judge. 7th Court at Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 116/ 81 decided on 31.8.1981.2. The prosecution case was that the buffalo belonging to the acquitted accused Maheshbhai Shivabhai was missing and he alongwith several other Patels of the village visited the Harijans Colony twice in search of the Buffalo but the buffalo could not be traced out. According to the prosecution in the early hours of 28.12.1980 about 10 Patels of the village went to the field of Jaswant Singh and brought the deceased Shakrabhai Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)290; [1997]88CompCas149(SC); JT1996(7)SC336; 1996(5)SCALE769; (1996)5SCC450; [1996]Supp4SCR226; 1996(2)LC581(SC)
ORDER41202. Admittedly, the bank guarantee given by the UCO Bank on behalf of the petitioner reads as under :On production of a Bank Guarantee for the above principal amount and interest due thereon, we, UCO Bank, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') at the request of Ansal Engineering Projects Limited Contractor (s) do hereby undertake to pay to the Corporation an amount not exceeding Rs. 57,57,970/- plus interest as aforesaid against any loss or damage caused to suffered or would be caused to or suffered by the Corporation by reason of any breach by the said Contractor (s) of any of the terms or conditions contained in the said Agreement. We, UCO Bank, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi do hereby undertake to pay the amount due and payable under this guarantee without any demur, merely on a demand from the Corporation stating that the amount claimed is due by way of loss or damage caused to or would be caused to or suffered by the Corporation by reason...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2544; 1996(56)ECC123; 1996(88)ELT314(SC); JT1996(9)SC113; 1996(5)SCALE479; (1996)5SCC484; [1996]Supp4SCR163
S.P. Bharucha, J.1.These are appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeals filed by the present appellants, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), before it.2. SAIL has a plant at Rourkela which manufactures fertilisers. For such purpose SAIL uses raw naphtha. Raw naphtha was, at the relevant time, excisable at a concessional rate of duty in terms of an exemption notification (No. 187 of 61) dated 23rd December, 1961, as amended from time to time. The concessional rate of duty stated therein was admissible provided-(i) it is proved to the satisfaction of an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise that such raw naphtha is intended for use in the manufacture of fertiliser; and (ii) the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is followed?It Was the case of the Revenue that a substantial quantity of raw naphtha was not, in fact, used by SAIL in the manufacture of fertiliser. SAIL w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)222; AIR1996SC2754; JT1996(7)SC210; 1996(5)SCALE752; (1996)11SCC655; [1996]Supp4SCR180; 1997(1)LC129(SC)
1. Heard counsel for the appellant.2. Pursuant to notice issued on November 22, 1988, Mr. Uma Dutta had appeared for the respondent. Subsequently, he reported on January 6, 1995 that he was instructed not to appear in the matter. He sought for and was granted permission to withdraw from the case. Thereafter, none appeared for the respondent. Initially, the case was adjourned since consequent upon reference doubting correctness of Mithilesh Kumar and Anr. v. Prem Behari Khare : [1989]177ITR97(SC) decision by a three-Judge Bench was awaited. The controversy is no longer res judicata. In view of the judgment of three-Judge Bench in R. Rajagopala Reddy v. Padmini Chandrashekharan : [1995]213ITR340(SC) , wherein it was held that the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act is prospective in operation, the question in this case is : where the sale of the appellant's land to the wife of the second respondent, Ram Mehrar, holder of power of attorney of the appellant is valid in law ?3. It is seen th...
Tag this Judgment!