Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1054; 1998(2)ALLMR(SC)53; JT1998(1)SC618; 1998(1)SCALE540; (1998)9SCC515; [1998]1SCR109
ORDER1. The Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Civil Judge, Junior Division on 16.3.1972. He was promoted as Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate on 7.9.1983.2. In 1986 process for making selection for purposes of promotion to the post of Additional District Judge was initiated by the High Court. On. 20.10.1986, respondent No. 1 was called for interview. From the facts found by the High Court it appears that the Judgment Scrutiny Committee categorised respondent No. 1 as Grade 'A'. His confidential record was good and no adverse remarks were ever communicated to him. His performance at the interview was also good and his name was included in the select list for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge.3. The select list prepared by the Interview Committee was considered by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court in its meeting on 2nd and 3rd May, 1987. The name of the respondent No. 1 was, however excluded from the list finally prepared by the Full Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)296; AIR1998SC666; 1998(59)ECC230; 1998(97)ELT385(SC); JT1998(1)SC79; 1998(1)SCALE65; (1998)1SCC696; [1998]1SCR74
These two appeals are directed against the order dated 12.8.92 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `tribunal'), whereby the tribunal allowed the respondent's appeals holding that the tanks and vats manufactured by the assessee would be classified under sub- heading 3926.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as "other articles of plastics" and not under heading 39.25 and sub-heading 3925.10 as "builders ware" of plastics.The facts of the case, briefly sated, are these : The respondent herein is engaged in business of manufacture of vessels, chemical tanks, reaction vessels, pipes and gobar gas plants. On a surprise inspection of the respondent's factory by the Central Preventive Unit of the Central Excise Department it was found that the respondent's unit was engaged in manufacture and sale of reservoir tanks etc. without payment of excise duty. Earlier, the respondent claimed exemption from l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)23; AIR1999SC55; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)44; 1998(4)Crimes126(SC); JT1998(4)SC311; RLW1999(1)SC2; (1998)3SCC71
ORDER1. Respondent has been served but despite service is not present. No objections to this petition have been filed either. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It transpires that a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The petitioner has, in that application, prayed for grant of maintenance allowance for herself and her daughter. The respondent has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 457 of 1996 before the Family Court at Agra seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of the Hindu marriage petition from the Family Court at Agra to Delhi. 4. Since no objections have been filed to this petition and no one appears to oppose the petition either, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in this application, we consider it appropriate to allow this applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC106; [1998(79)FLR180]; JT1998(2)SC667; 1998LabIC3594; (1998)IILLJ225SC; 1998(1)SCALE183; (1998)2UPLBEC1134
ORDER1. The subject matter of dispute surviving in these appeals relates to half of the back wages for a period of three years from 1983 to 1986 to respondent No.1 in these two appeals. No doubt several questions of law have been raised in these appeals requiring decision but the final question to be answered is limited to the extent indicated. We are also informed that these two employees -respondent No. 1 in these two appeals, have also been taken into employment, in 1986 pursuant to this Court's order and they are continuing in service. This being so, we do not consider it necessary to decide the question of law raised in these appeals, which we leave open for decision in an appropriate case and in view of the limited subject matter of the appeals we do not deem it fit to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appeals are dismissed for this reason. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)301; AIR1998SC668; 1998(97)ELT388(SC); JT1998(1)SC66; (1998)IIMLJ2(SC); 1998(1)SCALE58; (1998)8SCC250; [1998]1SCR63; [1998]109STC376(SC)
ORDERNanavati, J.1. In this batch of cases, the question that arises for consideration is whether a Central Excise notification comes into force with effect from the date on which it is printed in the Government Gazette or from the date it is made available to public.2. To illustrate the circumstances in which this question arises, we will state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 1989. The company involved in this appeal is the New Tobacco Company Limited. It was earlier known as Duncan Tobacco Company. It is engaged in manufacturing cigarettes. Since 1979, it used to pay duty on cigarettes manufactured by it at the rate fixed by Central Excise Notification No. 30/79 dated 1st March, 1979, as amended from time to time. It was rescinded with effect from 30th November, 1982 by Notification No. 284/82-C dated 30th November, 1982, which prescribed new rates of excise duty. Between 30th November, 1982 and 8th December, 1982, the Company cleared 79,456 million cigarettes and paid duty the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(7)SC286; (1998)9SCC46
ORDER1. The subject-matter of controversy in the present case is the demand of octroi for the period 1969 to 1983 by the respondent-Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika from the appellant amounting to approximately Rs six crores. In all a sum of Rs 1,50,17,892 has been paid by the appellant to the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika towards this claim. During the pendency of this appeal the appellant had offered to pay a further sum of Rs 25 lakhs to the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika in discharge of the entire liability under this head adding that the appellant would approach the Central Government for reimbursement of that amount from the Fertilizer Pool (FICC) in view of the fact that the ultimate liability for payment of octroi was that of Indian Oil Corporation. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the offer made earlier by the appellant as also the fact that octroi has now been abolished, we deem it fit that this litigation be brought to an end by making an order which commend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(98)ELT295(SC); (1998)2SCC460
ORDER1. The question involved in this appeal is as to under what entry does the product, sold under the brand name of 'Surje' which is a dietary supplement of superior proteins, fall. According to the appellant, this product would come under Heading 04.04, whereas according to the Department, it will fall under Heading 21.07.2. The Tribunal by a detailed order, having considered all the contentions of the parties came to the conclusion that the product in question would come under the Heading 21.07. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the relevant portions of the Tribunal's decision and also the entries in question and in our opinion in this particular case, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(98)ELT291(SC); JT1998(8)SC134; (1998)9SCC438
ORDER1. The only question involved relates to the classification of the rubber blankets imported by the appellant. According to the department they were assessable under Entry 40.16 whereas the appellant claimed that they fell under Entry 40.08. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, has come to the conclusion that the goods in question did not fall under Entry 40.08 and were correctly classified under Entry 40.16. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and we do not find any infirmity calling for an interference. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC49; 1999CriLJ19; (1998)2SCC371
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1997, whereby the accused-appellant Sans Pal Singh stands convicted for offences under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced in a measure disclosed in the order of sentence. 2. The prosecution case was that on 5-2-1991, Head Constable Sat Pal Singh, PW 5 and SI Mahipal Singh, PW 6 together with some constables were on duty to check vehicles at G.T. Karnal Road near Model Town police post. A vehicle was stopped wherefrom alighted the appellant. He swiftly walked towards Gujrawala Town Road on account of which suspicion arose in the minds of the police officers. He was stopped and his search was conducted by the a forenamed two police officials. As a result, a country-made pistol was recovered from the right pocket of his trousers and also two live cartridges. It is on that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1441; 1998(59)ECC235; 1998(97)ELT395(SC); JT1998(1)SC10; 1998(1)SCALE23; (1998)2SCC24; [1998]1SCR31
ORDERKirpal, J.1. These appeals involve for decision the question whether notional interest on the Interest free security deposit received should be considered for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value under the Excise Act by including interest at the rate of 12% per cent per annum on such security deposits.2. VST Industries Ltd. (appellant in CA No. 2524/92) is a company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes which was assessable to duty under the erstwhile Item No. 4 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The other two appellants, namely, Venus Tobacco Company Pvt. Ltd. (appellant in CA No. 2523/92) and Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory Ltd. (appellant in CA No. 2611/92) are also cigarette manufacturers and use their plant and machinery to manufacture cigarettes for and on behalf of VST Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'VST'). The question involved in these appeals, therefore, relates to the fixation of the assessable...
Tag this Judgment!