Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC335
ORDER 1. The appellant manufactures ‘pitch creosote mixture’ (PCM). This is taxable under Item 11 of the Excise Tariff entries. The relevant entry is quoted below: ‘Entry 11(2) Tar distilled from coal or lignite, and other mineral tars, including partially distilled tars and blends of pitch with creosote oils or with other coal tar distillation products.’ 2. The contention of the appellant is that PCM should be treated as ‘tar’ falling under Tariff Item 11(2). The lower authority held that PCM and tar were not the same products and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to get any benefit of the exemption notification which granted exemption only to ‘tars’. 3. The exemption notification is set out hereunder: ‘In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts tar, falling under Item 11 of the First Schedule to the Central Exci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(92)ELT36(SC); (1997)11SCC148
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal relating to the classification of what are known as rice rubber rolls. These are rubber sheets wrapped on malleable steel shells by a wrapping machine. After removal from the wrapping machine, they are cured in a hydraulic press and then vulcanised in open steam vulcanisers. They are then cut to the required lengths. The rice rubber rolls are used in the rice milling industry for shelling rice. They are fitted onto such machinery, utilising their hollow spaces for that purpose.2. The assessee contended that the rice rubber rolls manufactured by it should be classified under Tariff Item 40.09 which deals with 'tubes, pipes and hoses of vulcanised rubber, other than hard rubber, with or without their fittings (for example, joints, elbows, flanges)'. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the assessee that Item 40.09 includes tubes, pipes and hoses 'des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(91)ELT529(SC); JT1997(2)SC716; [1997]2SCR291
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal under Section 35(L) of the Central Excise & Sale Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is brought by the appellant-assessee on being aggrieved by the decision rendered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT for short) dismissing the assessee's appeal against the order in original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur.2. A few relevant facts leading to this appeal deserve to be noted at the outset. The appellant, Steel Authority of India Ltd. is a wholly owned Government of India Company. The appellant-company has several steel plants and Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP), situated at Durgapur in West Bengal, is one of the integrated steel plants of the appellant-company. DSP manufactures pig iron, steel ingots and several steel products. These products of DSP prior to 1983 were classified under the erstwhile tariff Items 25, 26 and 26AA. The appellant-company has been paying excise duty on these items under re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1563; (1997)11SCC552
1. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant can be held guilty for offence under Section 304B I.P.C on account of the suicide committed by his wife within seven years of marriage which could be called a 'dowry death'. For that purpose the only evidence of the prosecution available is that of PW-11, the father of the deceased Usha Rani. It does not matter much that the same was corroborated by P.W. 12 for it has to be examined whether the harassment meted out to the deceased shortly before her suicidal death could be attributed to anything concerning demand of dowry.2. The statement of PW-11 is to the effect that the appellant was married to his daughter Usha Rani on 27-4-1983. It is seated that the appellant was well disposed towards his wife for 5 to 7 months thereafter but then differences arose. The apparent reason was that PW-11, who had been a resident of Jalandhar had shifted to Panipat the town where the spouses resided. Having settled at Panipat, he h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1899; JT1997(3)SC221; 1997(3)SCALE426; (1997)10SCC376; [1997]2SCR320
1.These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on July 5, 1984 in OP No. 3003/80. In the State of Kerala, Head Clerk/Head Accountants, U.D.C.'s and L.D.S.'s - the ministerial staff consists of three groups of employees, namely, those allotted from erstwhile composite Province, (b) those similarly allotted from former Travancore-Cochin State and (c) those recruited to the State Service on or after November 1, 1956 (Kerala recruits). The appellants belong to the last category, vis., Kerala and recruits. For promotion from one ladder to the higher echelons, i.e., from LDCs to UDCs and so on, the Government in G.O. (P) No. 851, dated June 16, 1980 issued in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, made the rules called the Special Rules for the categories of Head Clerk/head Accountant, Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk of the Kerala Land Revenue Department included in the Kerala Minist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2456; JT1997(3)SC184; 1997(2)SCALE428; (1997)9SCC525; [1997]2SCR323; 1997(1)LC659(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court,made on March 11, 1982 in CWP No. 5173/81.2. The respondent, an IAS, allotted to the cadre of Haryana, while in service had obtained Ph.D. degree in 1979. He filed the writ petition seeking direction to the State to grant him four advance increments for acquiring his doctorate degree. The State by its order had earlier grant of such relief rejected it. Consequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench, following the judgment of a learned single Judge of that High Court, directed the State to grant him advance increments, as prayed for, on the premise that Rule 2(b) of the All India Services (Conditions of Service Residuary matters) Rules, 1960 (for short, the 'Rules') did not provide for any contrary rules prohibiting the grant of such incentives. As a consequence, the orders of the Government dated October 23, 1978 granting incentives of advance increments to e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1917; 1997(3)ALT3(SC); JT1997(3)SC203; (1997)2MLJ50(SC); 1997(2)SCALE346; (1997)10SCC309; [1997]2SCR314; 1997(2)LC4(SC)
1. Substitution allowed. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the High Court of M.P. passed on August 28, 1985 dismissing the second appeal.2. The appellant is a subsequent purchaser from Smt. Reshambai, wife of Ramaji Gujar. The admitted facts are that the deceased respondent and Reshambai had purchased jointly, an extent of 9 acres 2 decimals of land under sale deed dated August 26, 1966. There was a contemporaneous agreement of sale executed by Reshambai in favour of the appellant agreeing to convey her share in the property under the sale deed in terms of the agreement to the respondent. Pursuant to the sale, it is not in dispute, there was an oral arrangement under which the parties came to be in respective possession of the land comprised in the sale deed. When Reshambai attempted to sell the land to the appellant, notice was issued by the respondent on January 20, 1969 calling upon her to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC450; (1997)IILLJ1039SC; 1997(2)SCALE541; (1997)3SCC321; [1997]2SCR329; 1997(1)LC776(SC); (1997)2UPLBEC963
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on 10.8.1984 in CWP No. 1154/84.2. The admitted facts are that the respondent, while working as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, had tendered his resignation on April 32, 1982 to contest the election as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His resignation was accepted on May 18, 1982. He contested the election but was defeated. Thereafter, he filed an application on May 21, 1982 withdrawing his resignation. That was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The High Court observed that since three similarly situated persons, viz., Gurbajan Singh, Daryao Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi were allowed to withdraw their resignation were appointed in the respective posts held by them, the failure to extend similar benefit to the respondent would be violative of Article 14. Therefore, it directed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC117; JT1997(3)SC457; (1997)2MLJ125(SC); (1997)117PLR401; 1997(2)SCALE554; (1997)3SCC679; [1997]2SCR336; 1997(1)LC576(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, made on October 2, 1982 and August 9, 1983 in Civil Revision No. 3613/78.2. The admitted position is that the appellant-landlord had entered into an agreement of lease with the respondent-tenant on August 30, 1969 for a period of 711 months for rent @ Rs. 220 per mensem. Notice of demand for arrears and also for termination of tenancy for non-payment was delivered to the respondent on April 8,1972. Thereafter, the appellant filed suit on the small cause side for ejectment of the respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit on May 19, 1977. The tenants then filed the revision in the High Court. The learned single Judge referred the following two questions for decision by a Division Bench:1. Whether any term of a lease deed required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, could be pressed into service for a collateral purpose within the meaning of the provision to Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1904; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)694; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)526; 1997CriLJ1930; 1997(1)CTC738; 1997(58)ECC56; 1997(90)ELT285(SC); JT1997(3)SC88; (1997)3SCC100; [1997]2SCR306
ORDER1. Sub-section (2) of Section 377 of the CrPC provides the manner in which an appeal against and order of sentence on the ground of its inadequacy can be preferred by the State Government. It reads as follows:377. (2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, (the Central Government may also direct) the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. 2. The cases in hand are such in which investigations were made by the Customs Officer. The trials before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate led to the convictions of the accused respondents and orders of sentence were passed. On the ground of inadequacy of sentence, the appeals were preferred in the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!