Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC8; 2002LC796(SC); 2002(143)ELT22(SC); (2003)9SCC63
ORDER1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we think this appeal could be disposed of on a very short point. The Tribunal held :'Therefore, payment of duty by the appellants in the instant case, at the stage of doubled or multifold yam is immaterial and is not required to be considered. They are liable to pay excise duty on the single ply yam being the manufactured product. They cannot deny their liability to pay the excise duty on the plea that they had paid duty on the doubled/multifold yarn. They, if so advised may claim adjustment or refund of that duty amount but cannot seek exemption from payment of excise duty on the single ply yarn.'2. We agree with the above finding of the Tribunal. However, it is necessary to protect the interest of the assessee so we make it clear that if the appellant has paid duty on the double ply yarn, the said amount will be adjusted or set of given to the appellant in accordance with law on the appellant making appropriate application to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1881; 2002(81)ECC233; 2002(142)ELT10(SC); JT2002(4)SC465; 2002(4)SCALE254; (2002)4SCC710; [2002]128STC650(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J. 1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had made a demand on the respondent for clandestine clearance of bed-sheets, bed spreads etc. The said demand was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise along with the demand made for wrongful a ailment of benefits under Notification dated 1.3.1983 for the period 1983-85 as also the order of seizure of goods with an option to the respondent to redeem the same, if it so desired, on payment of a redemption fine with a further direction to pay a penalty of Rs. 25 lacs. Against the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') which by its order dated 3.8.1998 allowed the said appeal.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal before us. Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellant, contended that though the items, namely, bed-sheets, bed spreads, table clothes, napkins etc. are manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4058; 2003CriLJ3531; JT2002(Suppl1)SC512
ORDER1. On proof of the facts that the appellantswere selling adulterated curd, they were convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of the payment of fine, they were to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. The appeal and the revision filed by them were dismissed, hence this appeal by special leave. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that as the food inspector had not discharged his duties strictly in accordance with Rule 9 of the rules framed under the Act, the appellant should have been given the benefit of the lapses and the seized curd be deemed to have been prepared out of the cow's milk. Rule 9 of the rules refers to the duties of the food inspector and does not provide that in all cases, where sample is taken, the food inspector should as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)344; 2002(3)BLJR2153; JT2002(Suppl1)SC590; (2002)10SCC730; 2003AIRSCW3105
ORDER1. Record depicts that a notice of motion was taken out by the appellants herein for a direction to treat the probate proceedings as non-contentious proceedings with an additional prayer to grant probate, as prayed for. The factual score further depicts that the appellant plaintiff being the widow of the deceased testator, had filed the present appeal for probate of the Will executed by her husband, Jhaverchand Mehta. According to the appellant, her husband who executed the Will dated 10th March, 1989 died on 16th March, 1989 and she, being the sole legatee under the Will, prayed for grant of the probate. The respondents who happened to be the widowed daughter-in-law and grand daughters of the plaintiff, did file caveat opposing the grant of probate. Their main defence been denial of execution of the Will by the deceased.2. Subsequently, however, as record depicts, the respondents took out a chamber summons for amendment of their affidavit in support of the caveat so as to take an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2394; 2003(51)BLJR92; [2002(2)JCR161(SC)]; JT2002(4)SC487; 2002(4)SCALE275; (2002)5SCC175
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Lease to appeal is granted.2. The parties represented in the case are finally heard on merits of the appeal.3. In the suit filed for eviction of the appellant from suit premises under the provisions of Section 17 (2) & (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 [hereinafter referred to as Act], the application for amendment has been rejected by the trial court and the order has been upheld by the High Court of Calcutta in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant seeks to resist the eviction suit on he ground that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the application filed under Section 17(2) & (2A) of the Act initially in paragraph 10, it was stated that Alamohan Dass was the licensee of the suit premises.4. By the amendment application, permission was sought to delete original paragraph 10 to be substituted by new paragraph 10 to make an averment that Alamohan Dass was merely a recorded 'p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2276; 97(2002)DLT899a(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC553; RLW2002(4)SC523; 2002(4)SCALE264; (2002)5SCC274
ORDER1. Appellant No. 1 - Gadiraju Rama Raju is the husband of Gadiraju Sita Mani, who died an unnatural death on 5.3.1988. The marriage of the parties had been solemnized on 24.4.1985. Treating it as a case of dowry death the appellants along with two others were charged under Section 304B read with Section 34 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 were acquitted of both the charges but the appellants were convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They were also sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal the judgment of the trial court was modified and instead of Section 304B of IPC, the accused were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC besides for the offence punishable under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2241; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)366; (2002)3BOMLR673; 2002CriLJ2957; 2002(2)Crimes380(SC); JT2002(4)SC470; 2002(4)SCALE240; (2002)9SCC55; [2002]3SCR622; 2002(2)LC839(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Designated Court, only one of the accused viz. Ravinder Singh & Bittu is the appellant. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant and one Nishan Singh have been convicted for offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act read with Section 120 IPC, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1984. They have been sentenced to these offences and in default suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of six months each. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default suffer RI for six months and for the other two offences RI for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2273; (2002)3CALLT82(SC); 2002(81)ECC228; JT2002(4)SC495; 2002(4)SCALE265; (2002)9SCC177
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Leave granted.2. The State of West Bengal has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 17th of August, 2001 whereby the said High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal and directed the State Government to consider the case of the respondents for grant of foreign liquor off-shop licences at the new sites selected by the State Government along with other eligible candidates.3. The respondents are holders of licence under the West Bengal Excise Act for sale of 50 U.P. Rum and Beer issued to them by the State Government with a view to rehabilitate these persons whose business in ganja, opium and bhang came to be prohibited under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.4. The State of West Bengal notified the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Persons for Grant of License at New Sites for Retail Sale of Spirit an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(4)SC548; (2002)3MLJ98(SC); 2002(4)SCALE340; (2002)9SCC28; [2002]3SCR632
Shah, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. Short question involved in this matter iswhether an ex parte decree passed against a Company which was taken over by the Orissa Ordinance No.8 of 1991 by the State Government can be executed against the State Government even though the Government of Orissa was not brought on record before passing of the decree? Admittedly, the Ordinance taking over the assets of the Charge Chrome Division of the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. was promulgated on 24th September, 1991 and the suit filed by the respondents was decreed against the Charge Chrome Division on 12th November 1991 without bringing the State Government on record as party defendant. Thereafter, the judgment creditor filed an Execution Application on 24th October, 1994 for recovering the amount decreed from the Government of Orissa as well as other respondents. The State Government contended that the decree is not executable against it as it was not brought on record...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 97(2002)DLT899(SC); JT2002(4)SC615; RLW2002(4)SC523a; 2002(2)LC1121(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-landlord has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in S.A.O. No. 9 of 2000 dated 15th of May, 2000 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant against the order of eviction made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi as confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.3. The Additional Rent Control by her order dated 8.9.1998 allowed a petition filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the 'Act') in regard to the schedule premises on the ground that the respondent-tenant has neither paid nor tendered the legally recoverable rent within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on the tenant. The defence of the tenant that there was no arrears was not accepted by the Rent Controller, as also the contention put forth by the tenant that he had legally tendered whatever rent that was payab...
Tag this Judgment!