Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(91)ELT528(SC); (1997)11SCC101
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, CJI and S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. He tried to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the authorities as well as the Tribunal below that armatures are not rotors and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty. We have perused the evidence adduced in this behalf and we are satisfied that the view taken by the authorities below as well as the Tribunal, cannot be said to be one which calls for interference. There is also nothing on the record to show that in commercial parlance a rotor and an armature have precise and definite meanings and are not treated as identical. Even if a rotor and an armature are not taken to be one and the same commodity, they perform the similar function and have the same characteristics and, therefore, if the authorities and the Tribunal concluded that armatures also come within the meaning of rotors, we see no reason to interfere.2. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC326; (1997)11SCC112
ORDER1. The appellant S.K. Sharma during the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 was shown as 'Good' in the ACRs of those years, although there was no formal categorisation. In the ACR of 1983-84 he was described as 'Average' and the DIG also categorised him as an officer of average calibre. In that particular year, he was holding a dual charge, being Joint Superintendent of Police as well as holding charge of part of the establishment work at the Intelligence Headquarters. He had been promoted as Joint Superintendent of Police on 24-11-1982.2. H.N. Srivastava who has been impleaded as a party was described as an officer with 'excellent performance' in the year 1980-81. For the year 1981-82 he was categorised as 'Good' by the Re porting Officer while the Reviewing Officer had mentioned his conduct to be 'excel lent' without making any categorisation. He was promoted as Joint Superintendent of Police on 11-7-1983. For the years 1982-83 he was described as 'outstanding' whereas in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2133; JT1997(2)SC508; 1997(2)SCALE138; (1997)9SCC199; [1997]1SCR454; 1997(1)LC742(SC)
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, made on 6-9-1996 in OA No. 330/CH/89. Admittedly, the respondent belongs to Scheduled Castes and was eligible for promotion as Head-Draftsman. For the promotion to the said post, the petitioners appointed Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sood on March 30, 1988 and Mr. Dharam Nand on March 14, 1989. The respondent had challenged their promotion and non-consideration of his case claiming that he was eligible to be considered in the post as a reserved candidate though the post was meant for Scheduled Tribes. By order of the Government of India, the posts are inter-changeable between Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and if the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes is not available, the eligible candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes in entitled to be considered for promotion to the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Since he was not considered, the legitimate right t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(90)ELT15(SC); JT1997(10)SC743; (1997)10SCC769
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The appellants manufacture tyres, among them aero tyres. Occasionally, some aero tyres are found to be unfit for use on aircraft. These are degraded by buffing the description upon them and painting in a prominent and durable fashion the words 'ADV' thereon. In respect of these degraded tyres the appellants claimed the benefit of exemption provided by a notification dated 15th October, 1982 (229/82) issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The relevant clause of the notification reads thus : _________________________________________________________________ SI. Sub-Item Description Rate Conditions No. No. _________________________________________________________________ 9. IV. Tyres specifically Nil Provided that a designed for use durable of animal drawn prominent vehicles or hand marking of the carts. letters 'ADV' has been made on every such tyre. __________________________________________________________________The exemption having been denied to them, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(2)BLJR1562; JT1997(10)SC363; (1998)9SCC236
ORDER1. Special leave granted. 2. We feel a little distressed that in matter like this the High Court should have interfered with the decision taken by the Board. The contention was that the examination was cancelled on the report of a Naib Tehsildar dated 18-3-1996 who was not authorised by the Board to visit the examination center. It is irrelevant whether the Naib Tehsildar was authorised by the Board to visit the center or not but what is of importance is the fact that he did visit the center and found the students copying even before the question papers were distributed. This clearly implies that the students were aware of the questions indicative of the leakage of the question paper. The Naib Tehsildar even complained that the teachers did not object to the students entering the examination hall with books and copying material. That would mean that either they were hand in glove with the students or, they were, for some reason not able to stop the students from copying. This is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(1)SC625; (1997)2SCC715; [1997]1SCR403
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 9.9.1991 whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein challenging the notification No. 25/Licence/Part-3 dated 18.5.1990 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, were dismissed. The impugned Notification dated 18.5.1990 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 41 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter called 'the Act') with the prior approval of the State Government. By the said Notification certain amendments were made in the Rules published with Notification No. 423-Five / 284/B, dated 26th September 1910. Section 41 of the Act gives power to the excise Commissioner to make Rules, Inter alia, for regulating the manufacture, supply, storage or sale of any intoxicant; for regulating deposit and removal of any intoxicant and prescribing the scale of fees or manner of fixing the fees payable for licence, permit or pass, including...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC914; JT1997(1)SC700; 1997(1)SCALE419; (1997)2SCC591; [1997]1SCR420; [1997]104STC601(SC)
ORDERAhmadi, C.J.I.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered on 14-8-1978 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby it repelled the contention of the appellant firm that Rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules was directory and not mandatory and if held to be mandatory the said rule was ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The appellant, M/s. Phool Chand Gupta, was at all material times a dealer in oil seeds. This firm was assessed under the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Vizianagaram, for the relevant assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. He granted exemption on a turnover in respect of mohwa seeds on the plea that the seeds were purchased by the firm while in transit and were sold to dealers outside the State. The Deputy Commissioner, however, noticed that the assessee had actually purchased the Railway Receipts relating to the mohwa seeds from non-resident dealers while the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC962; JT1997(2)SC480; 1997(2)SCALE22; (1997)3SCC340; [1997]1SCR446
1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of Income-tax Reference No. 279 of 1973 made at the instance of the assessee which was disposed of by the Calcutta High Court by the impugned judgment dated August 25, 1978. Out of the two questions referred to it for its opinion, the High Court declined to answer question No. 1 as it did not arise from the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') and question No. 2 was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The said question was in these terms:Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that on the facts and circumstances of the case the exchange of one security for another could be described as realisation of the security resulting in profit?2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1963-64 for the relevant previous year ended on July 31, 1962. The assessee is a company dealing in shares. It was holding 14500 shares of Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Company Limited (hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)138CTR(SC)224
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. :The respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business as agents of Hindustan Lever Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation and various other corporations. The respondent carries on wholesale business in the products of these companies and has its registered office at Kanatabanji District, Bolangir, in the State of Orissa. For the asst. yr. 1969-70 the respondent was assessed under s. 12(4) of the Orissa Sales-tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by order dt. 23rd Sept., 1970. Thereafter on 26th Nov., 1970, the Vigilance Unit of the Sales-tax department seized the books of account and other documents of the respondent. On the basis of the report which was submitted by the Vigilance Unit the assessment for asst. yr. 1969-70 was reopened. The respondent was reassessed under s. 12(8) of the said Act under an order dt. 27th May, 1972. By another order of the same date, namely 27th May, 1972, an assessment order for asst. yr. 1970-71 was also passed un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC871; 84(1997)CLT718(SC); JT1997(1)SC667; 1997(1)SCALE411; (1997)3SCC246; [1997]1SCR436; [1997]104STC594(SC)
ORDERMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business as agents of Hindustan Lever Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation and various other corporations. The respondent carries on whole-sale business in the products of these companies and has its registered office at Kanatabanji District Bolangir in the State of Orissa. For the assessment year 1969-70 the respondent was assessed under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by order dated 23-9-1970, the vigilance Unit of the Sales Tax Department seized the books of account and other documents of the respondent. On the basis of the report which was submitted by the Vigilance Unit the assessment for assessment year 1969-70 was reopened. The respondent was reassessed under Section 12(8) of the said Act under an order dated 27-5-1972. By another order of the same date, namely 27-5-1972, an assessment order for assessment year 1970-71 was also passed under Section...
Tag this Judgment!