Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4119; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)1116; [2003(97)FLR602]; JT2003(3)SC533; (2003)IILLJ744SC; 2003(3)SCALE390; (2003)4SCC670; [2003]2SCR1062; 2003(3)SLJ217(SC)
ORDER1. The State of U.P. and another are before us in this appeal, assailing the order passed by the High Court in a writ petition affirming the order passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal No. III, Lucknow. The respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector, Group-III by the Director of Agriculture. On account of certain irregularity or misconduct the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the District Agriculture Officer. After holding enquiry, he submitted a report to the disciplinary authority which authority, accepting the report of the District Agriculture officer, passed the order of dismissal dated 11.4.1977 dismissing the respondent No. 1 from service. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Before the said Tribunal, a contention was raised that respondent No. 1 having been appointed by the Director of Agriculture, the District Agriculture Office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1405; JT2003(3)SC169; 2003(3)SCALE154; (2003)5SCC134; [2003]2SCR933; 2003(3)SLJ252(SC); 2003(2)LC897(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant's prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus to the State of Rajasthan to pay compensation on cessation of functioning as Chairman of the abolished Rajasthan Taxation and Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') having been turned down by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, this appeal has been preferred. As the core question involved is pristinely legal, it is unnecessary to enter into the factual aspects in detail.2. Factual panorama in a nutshell is as follows:3. Appellant was appointed as Judicial Member of the Tribunal in terms of notification dated 16.9.1995 issued by the Finance Department (Taxation Division) of the Government of Rajasthan. Appointment of the appellant was made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Taxes and Tribunal Act 1995 (in short 'the Act'). By the notification dated 16.9.1995 referred to above. Chairman and the technical member...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1340; 2003(4)ALT54(SC); 2003(3)AWC1825(SC); (2003)3CALLT8(SC); [2003(97)FLR322]; 2003(1)JKJ635[SC]; JT2003(3)SC151; 2003(3)SCALE165; (2003)9SCC32; [2003]2SCR958
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals are classic examples of how simple controversies car be turned into confusions galore. the chameleonic some assaults in stands taken by the concerned authorities has added to the confusion in no less measure. The controversy related to simple question as to whether Seethal Kumar Vaish (hereinafter referred to as the employee') was on deputation, and if not, what was his status in employment. The High Court rightly noted that there has been great shift of stands by the parties and ultimately come to the conclusion that the employee was in substantive employment with Ram Ganga Command Area Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the 'Project') and thereafter in the Ram Ganga Command Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'). He was not liable to be treated as employee of the Kanpur Sakkari Milk Board Limited (in short 'Milk Board').2. As the stand was shifted and there is no consistency therein, it would be appropri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3431; 2003(86)ECC533; 2003(153)ELT241(SC); JT2003(3)SC312; 2003(3)SCALE321; (2003)4SCC630; [2003]2SCR1057
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short point that arises in these appeals by the Revenue, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, is whether show-cause notice dated March 6, 1998 issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, invoking proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is valid in law?2. The respondent-assessee manufactures goods of copper and copper alloys. Shells and blanks manufactured by it were cleared without payment of excise duty and were captivily consumed as in manufacture of pipes and tubes during the period March 1, 1981 to December 5, 1982. The Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, issued notice to the assessee on March 6, 1986 invoking the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 11,83,19476.94 leviable on shells and blanks for he period between March 1, 1981 to December 5, 1985 should not be recovered, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3493; 2003(1)ARBLR651(SC); 2003(4)AWC2727(SC); JT2003(5)SC103; (2003)3MLJ76(SC); 2003(3)SCALE201; (2003)10SCC375; [2003]2SCR1028; 2003(2)LC838(SC)
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a Letter of Comfort furnished on the same day of a Settlement arrived at during conciliation signed by both the parties and authenticated by the Conciliators is enforceable in the same manner as an arbitration award under Section 74 read with Sections 30 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?3. The appellant-My sore Cements Limited contracted by its letters dated April 2, 1994 and July 30, 1994 with the respondent-Svedala Barmac Limited, a company based in New Zealand, for the supply and commissioning of two sets of Barmac 9600 DUOPACTOR rock-crushing machines for its cement plant at Damoh vide two separate letters dated July 30, 1994. Mysore Cements also contracted with another subsidiary of Barmac Ltd. for the supply and commissioning of four Vibrating Ripo flo Screens. On failure of machinery to crush limestone in accordance with the respondent's assurances, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3479; 2003(2)AWC1462(SC); JT2003(3)SC284; 2003(3)SCALE342; (2003)9SCC542; [2003]2SCR1000
Shivraj V. Patil, J.1. About 496 acres of land including that of the appellants were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued for the purpose of planned development of district Ghaziabad (now district Gautam Budh Nagar) through NOIDA on 5.1.1991 and 7.1.1992 respectively. The appellants challenged those notifications by filing writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed. They filed appeals by Special Leave to this Court challenging the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. This Court in Om Prakash and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : [1998]3SCR643 disposed of those appeals giving certain directions. Although several contentions were raised before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, finally this Court has made observations and gave certain directions in paras 31 and 32, which read as under:-'31. Now remains the moot question as to what proper orders c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3434; 2003(86)ECC281; 2003(153)ELT266(SC); JT2003(3)SC358; 2003(3)SCALE198; (2003)4SCC337; [2003]2SCR920
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The Revenue is in appeal, against the common order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in Appeal Nos. E/2114/91-B and E/3349/91-B, filed by the assessees, dated 6th December, 1993.2. For appreciating the question raised in these appeals, it will suffice to refer to the facts in the case of M/s. Universal Electrical Industries, the assessee. The assessee manufactures electric toasters, room heaters, electric fans etc. It is a small scale industry claiming benefit of Notification No. 175/1986-C.E. dated 1st March, 1986 [for short, 'the notification']. The assessee has been clearing the goods under the notification, both the inputs as well as the finished goods. On August 6, 1990, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee calling upon it to explain as to why the benefit of the said notification should not be denied to it. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, the jurisdic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(88)ECC2; 2003(154)ELT350(SC); (2003)11SCC361
ORDER1. These appeals are against a decision of the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The majority have held that a purchaser who claims refund under Section 11B must do so within six months of the date of purchase of the goods. It is held that the purchaser is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to that Section even if the manufacturer has paid the duty under protest. 2. To consider the question, it is necessary to set out herein the relevant portion of Section 11B. The relevant portion of Section 11B reads as un-der:- 'SECTION 11B. Claim for refund of duty. - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (includ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(154)ELT348(SC); 2003(10)SCALE47; (2003)9SCC210
ORDER1. These appeals are against the order dated 22nd August, 1997 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The question was whether sand, to which a quoting of resin is applied, becomes a manufactured item. The Tribunal has held that if it is used for captive consumption then no duty would be payable but that if it is soldthen duty would be payable. We find that the decision of the Tribunal is covered by Notification No. 217/86-CE., dated 2nd April, 1986 which exempts sand used in the manufacture of casting provided it is used for captive consumption. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1936; [2003(97)FLR332]; JT2003(5)SC138; 2003(3)SCALE174; (2003)4SCC218; [2003]2SCR899; 2003(3)SLJ272(SC)
D. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the Order dated 26.8.1996 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No. 777/91, whereunder the claim of the appellants before this Court and some others seeking to quash the amendments introduced in 1991, notified on 24.5.1991, which had the consequence of bringing all the industries Promotion Officers (IPOs) within the zone of consideration for promotion to Class-II service and their further claim to declare that only Rs. 500-930 grade employees alone are eligible for promotion to Class-II post and that those in Rs. 400-750 grade are ineligible to such Class-II promotions, came to be rejected.2. Prior to coming into force of the Orissa Industries Service Rules, 1985 on 12.9.1985, officers of different categories in the Industries Department under the Directorate of Industries were performing duties and functions of the same nature at different levels in varied fields, appointed to posts with the different nomencla...
Tag this Judgment!