Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3696; [2003(1)JCR270(SC)]; (2002)9SCC534a
ORDER1. In pursuance of Court's order dated 7th November, 2000 and 27th November, 2001 Dr. S.D. Makhijani, Additional Director, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has filed an affidavit dated 26th March, 2002 stating that CPCB has received an amount of Rs. 71.13 lacs from the Mission Management Board, Government of U.P. for the purpose of purchase and procurement of hardware components and an amount of Rs. 49.45 lacs have been received from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India as operational cost including salary and rent towards establishment of four monitoring stations in Agra. Further the feasibility of purchasing Solar Photovoltaic power for essential equipment for the Air quality Monitoring Laboratory was discussed but considering its costs CPCB has decided to procure 5 KVA Battery operating Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) system for all four monitoring stations with adequate back up time in compliance of the order passed by this Court.2. This affidavi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]112CompCas379(SC); 2002(83)ECC288; 2002LC308(SC); 2002(143)ELT244(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC459; (2002)9SCC463
ORDER1. The appellant is a public limited company. It manufactures glassware. One of the purchasers of such glassware during the period under appeal, namely, 6th September, 1979 to 15th January 1983 was the Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited. Because the assessee held shares in this chemical company and the chemical company held shares in the assesses and the chairman and three directors were common, it was contended by the revenue that they were 'related persons' and that the price at which the assesses sold glassware to the chemical company should be marked up for the purposes of valuation for excise duty. 2. The matter having reached the tribunal, the case put forth by the revenue was accepted on this basis; 'In the present case both the companies were set up by the same family and the appellant company is holding 9% of the shares of M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. while M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. holds 14% shares of the total shares held in the appellant company....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC758; 2002(143)ELT23(SC)
ORDER1. Learned counsel for the Revenue seeks further time on the ground that what is in question had not been raised at any earlier stage. We decline to give such time for the following reasons :2. This appeal was admitted on 1st December, 1997. At that stage, the Court recorded: 'It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner (assessee) that the respondents (Revenue) have now accepted the stand of the petitioner that electrical resistance alloy is not 'stainless steel'.'3. When this appeal reached hearing on 20th March, 2002, this Court recorded :'When this appeal was admitted, it was recorded that it had been stated on behalf of the appellant that the respondents had accepted the stand of the appellant that electrical resistance alloy was not stainless steel. Although four years and more have passed and the matter has been adjourned in the past to enable the respondents to obtain instructions in regard to the assessments for subsequent years, a further adjournment on the ground of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(82)ECC459; 2002LC278(SC); 2002(142)ELT522(SC); (2002)9SCC515
1. We have read the judgments of the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which are impugned in these appeals. We are of the view that the judgments viewed Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act in the proper perspective.The two sections operate in different fields and are invoked for different purposes. Different time limits are, therefore, set out therein. We do not accept the contention that recovery of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of Section 35E if the time limited provided in Section 11A has expired. To so read the provisions would be to render Section 35E virtually ineffective, which would be imperssible.2. The appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC491
ORDER1. Leave is granted. 2. The appeal filed by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Allahabad dated 18th February, 2000 in civil miscellaneous writ petition No. 32705 of 1999 in which the court ordered partial eviction of the tenant, respondent No. 1 herein, from the premises in question. The premises in question was being used for a shop by the tenant. The landlord filed the application for release/eviction of the tenant in 1977 on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') alleging, interalia, that he required the premises for setting up a business for himself. In the first round of the litigation, the landlord lost before the prescribed authority as well as before the appellant authority. The High Court on consideration of the matter set aside the judgment/order passed by the forums below and remanded the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1724; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)951; 97(2002)DLT326(SC); [2002(93)FLR826]; JT2002(4)SC49; 2002LabIC1464; (2002)IILLJ275SC; RLW2002(3)SC466; 2002(3)SCALE442; (2002)4SCC490; [
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal filed by the employee is directed against the order dated 10.7.2000 of the Delhi High Court declining to interfere with the order of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) refusing to refer the dispute raised by the appellant to theIndustrial Tribunal/Labour Court on the sole ground that he is not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciating the questions raised in the case may be stated thus:4. The appellant was holding the post of 'Area Sales Executive' when his service was terminated vide the order dated 20.12.1995. The order was communicated to him on28.12.1995. No show cause notice was served nor any enquiry was held before the order terminating appellant's service was passed. However, one month's salary was sent to him alongwith the termination letter. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC24
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The respondents have filed a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction and for rendition of accounts. Therein the appellants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short) seeking a direction referring the parties to arbitration on the ground that there existed between the parties an arbitration agreement according to which the disputes raised by the respondents before the court were not available for adjudication except by being referred for arbitration. It was submitted that there was a technology transfer agreement (TTA) dated 20th May, 1995 which contained an arbitration clause and by reference to the letter dated 5th May, 1998 written by the appellant No. 1 to the respondents, the same agreement became applicable to the parties. The application under Section 8 of the Act was rejected by the learned judge of Delhi High Court (original side). The defendants in the suit have filed this appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1715; (2002)174CTR(SC)210; [2002]254ITR772(SC); JT2002(4)SC10; 2002(3)SCALE383; (2002)4SCC339; [2002]2SCR1047; 2002TAXLR803; [2002]122TAXMAN426(SC)
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this appeal, which is filed after obtaining special leave, the Order dated 24th May, 1996 of the High Court of Delhi has been assailed. The main question involved is on the application and interpretation of the provisions of Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The relevant facts necessary for deciding the legal question raised are as under: -1. The appellant's lands were acquired under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and an award was passed on 2.12.1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi granting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by Judgment dated 20.5.1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the compensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total compensation in the sum of Rs.1,18,810/- approximately in the year 1981.2. On a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi vide his Judgment dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC757; 2002(143)ELT16(SC)
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel. It appears that the Appellate Commissioner's order, upholding the classification proposed by the Revenue, proceeds on a basis that is contrary to the finding of the Assistant Commissioner and, indeed, of the show cause notice. The Tribunal, while appreciating that all that was before it was, the finding of the Appellate Commissioner, appears to have reverted to the conclusions of the Assistant Commissioner in upholding the Revenue's classification. There is, therefore, something to be said for the contention on behalf of the assessee that it has had no opportunity to meet the case that has been set up, as aforesaid, at different times.2. It is, in the circumstances, appropriate that the matter should stand remanded to the Assistant Commissioner and he may, if he so chooses, address to the assessee a fresh show cause notice which sets out, precisely, what is the Revenue's case on the classification, which case shall be adhered to at all times there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC449
1. The order under appeal was passed by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting, summarily, the writ petition filed by the present appellant in these circumstances:2. The appellant is the municipal corporation of Faridabad. The first respondent is a trucking company. On 24th May, 1994 a truck of the first respondent, carrying gases of the value of Rs. 5,90,425.36, crossed the appellant's municipal limits without payment of octroi. It had penetrated 4 kms. within those limits before it was intercepted by the octroi department's flying squad. The flying squad seized the gases and impounded the truck. On the same day, the first respondent deposited the octroi amount of Rs. 23,617.02 and wrote a letter to the administrator ot the appellants. The letter said that its truck had crossed into the appellant's municipal limits without payment of octroi because the driver of the truck was new. The appellants were requested to release the truck on the assurance that such...
Tag this Judgment!