Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)SCALE710
ORDER1. List this special leave petition after eight weeks.2. In the meantime, any remittance of foreignexchange by the petitioner herein and respondents Nos.13 and 14 shall be subject to further orders of thisCourt.3. Dasti....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1455; 2003(85)ECC705; 2003(152)ELT257(SC); JT2003(1)SC513; 2003(1)SCALE550; (2003)4SCC325; [2003]1SCR771
Shah, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is--whether imported of Beef Tallow under Open General Licence (hereinafter referred to as 'OGL') was permissible after issue of Import Trade Control Public Notice No. 29-ITC (PN/81) on 5th June, 1981 clarifying that existing description 'Mutton Tallow' in Entry No. 44 shall be read as 'Tallow of any animal origin including Mutton Tallow'? 2. Appendix to Import Policy 1981-82 provides for list of items, import of which is canalised through public sector agencies. Item 44 provides that import of tallow of any animal origin including mutton tallow as canalised through State Trading Corporation of India.3. It is contended by the respondent that OGL item was imported against licence dated 29.6.1981 which was an impress licence issued to M/s. B. Arun Kumar and Co., Bombay under the import-export policy for the period 1981-82 and that respondent entered into a contract for import which was notorised on 6.6.1981. Subsequently, the written contra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(85)ECC712; 2003(152)ELT36(SC); JT2003(1)SC523; 2003(1)SCALE542; (2003)3SCC636
Santosh Hegde, J.1. There appeals arise out of a decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (the tribunal), wherein the tribunal by a majority judgment held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the exemption granted under Notification No. 217/85 as amended in regard to the parts of nozzle and nozzle holders used by them in the manufacture of an internal combustion engine (ICE--diesel oil operated).2. Before the tribunal the issue arose in view of the stand taken by the Department that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the said notification because the notification in question having not exempted nozzle and nozzle holders, the respondent cannot claim the benefit of the said notification in respect of the parts of nozzle and nozzle holders on the ground that they are used in the manufacture of original equipment viz. internal combustion engines.3. The Judicial Member agreed with the view of the Department that since the notification i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1162; 2003(85)ECC710; 2003(152)ELT32(SC); JT2003(1)SC510; 2003(1)SCALE548; (2003)2SCC436
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant is a composite unit engaged in the manufacture of manmade fabric falling under the erstwhile Tariff Head 18-III/18-E/22 and Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the above process, it manufactures single ply yarn which is then used in doubling or multifolding the same in a continuous process in their factory. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay central excise duty on the manufacture of the single ply yarn or at the stage when the single ply yarn is converted into double ply yarn/multi fold yarn when the same is cleared from the factory. The stand of the revenue is that on the manufacture of the single ply yarn the same is exigible to duty, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty at the stage. The appellant contends that the single ply yarn manufactured by it is not cleared from its factory but is used in a continuous process in converting the same int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1012; 2003CriLJ1243; JT2003(1)SC472; 2003(1)SCALE521; (2003)9SCC41
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellants and one Seti Lal were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, U.P. The trial court having found them guilty of the said offence, they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 and were sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years. They were further sentenced to undergo 2 years' RI under Section 148 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge directed the sentences to run concurrently.2. The said accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 993 of 1980 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. During the pendency of the appeal, the fourth accused--Seti Lal--died and the appeal abated so far as he was concerned. The High Court concurring with the findings of the courts below dismissed the said criminal appeal, conseq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1014; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)31; 2003CriLJ1246; JT2003(2)SC151; 2003(1)SCALE525; (2003)2SCC571
The appellants were accused Nos.1 and 3 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle in S.C.No.53/92. They were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge who found them guilty and convicted them for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II and sentenced both the accused to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years. The said conviction and sentence has been upheld in appeal by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.1272/92.Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 25.5.1991 at about 8 p.m. there was an altercation between the wife of the Ist appellant herein and the wife of the deceased in regard to taking water from the tap. This altercation turned out to a fight in which members of both the families joined and it is stated that in the said fight the accused persons stabbed the deceased Mahaboob Saheb on the abdomen and chest. The deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1164; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)508; 2003CriLJ1282; 2003(1)JKJ650[SC]; JT2003(2)SC1; 2003(1)SCALE529; (2003)2SCC518; [2003]1SCR754; 2003(1)UJ529(SC)
This appeal has been preferred by the complainant (first informant) against the judgment and order dated 26.9.1991 of High Court of Punjab & Haryana by which the appeal preferred by the accused-respondent was allowed and the judgment and order dated 28.7.1989 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur by which they had been convicted and sentenced was set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted accused Surjit Singh under Section 302 IPC and the remaining three accused, namely, Balwinder Singh, Avtar Singh and Mal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and had sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The accused were further convicted under Section 307 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The case of the prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(165)ELT493(SC)
ORDER1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/2030/2000-NB and the modified order dated 11th May, 2001, reducing penalty, the assessee has preferred these appeals.2. At the time of hearing of these matters, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon three subsequent decisions rendered by the Tribunal taking contrary view than the view which is taken in this matter interpreting Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant are as follows :1. Bellows Paint Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI (Tri. - Mumbai)]2. Phoenix Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Meerut (Tri. - Delhi)]; and3. Ham co Mining & Smelting Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat [2001 (45) RLT 958 (CEGAT-Mumbai)]3. Further, as Rule 57G(3)(c) is not clear, the Boar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1175; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)1111; 2003(2)ALT53(SC); [2003(96)FLR1002]; JT2003(1)SC632; (2003)IILLJ179SC; 2003(1)SCALE585; (2003)2SCC386; [2003]1SCR744; 2003(2)SLJ46(SC);
ORDER1. The appellant was appointed in Zilla Parishad, Jalna on May 13, 1985 on temporary basis for a period of one year. After expiry of that period, he was again given a fresh appointment for one more year with effect from May 14, 1986, after giving a break for one day. He was placed of under suspension on July 1, 1987 on the ground that he had paid an amount of Rs. 18,000/- to a contractor when the actual cost of reparis was only Rs. 8,000/-. In the very suspension order, an enquiry also was directed in regard to the allegation of payment of Rs. 18,000/- as against the actual cost of Rs. 8,000/- spent towards reparis. A complaint also was made against him on criminal side in respect of the same allegation. Ultimately, after trial, he was acquitted. The respondent passed an order terminating the services of the appellant. Aggrieved by this order of termination of services, the appellant filed writ petition in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1441; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)121; 2003CriLJ1292; 2003(1)JKJ642[SC]; JT2003(1)SC565; 2003(1)SCALE514; (2003)3SCC166; [2003]1SCR733; 2003(1)LC480(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 14th July, 2001 by which the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court, Jammu, under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act), has acquitted the Respondents.2. Briefly state the facts are as follows:Initially there were 12 persons who were charged under Sections 302 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the TADA Act. Out of those 4 persons died and 5 others were absconding. Therefore, only the three Respondents were put to trial. The only evidence against these Respondents were their confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act.3. The case of the prosecution was that they were part of a terrorist group under the name and style of Jamait-Ul-Mujahidin. The case of the prosecution was that the aim of the group is to over awe the Government duly established by law and to segregate Jammu and Kashmir from Union of India. The case...
Tag this Judgment!