Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2003]129TAXMAN547(SC)
ORDERThe Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.2. The SLP(C) Nos. 15771/01 and 20674/02 to be delinked inasmuch as the civil appeals have been dismissed on the factual findings of the Tribunal.The situation in these matters is argued to be different. There are also additional questions involved. Therefore the delay condoned and leave granted in these petitions....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(155)ELT11(SC)
ORDER1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 16th September, 1998 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CEGAT'), South Zonal Bench at Madras, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. The questions which require consideration are : -(1) Whether or not the Modvat credit in respect of metal containers are required to be reversed, if the metal container or, packing material in which inputs was received is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product?(2) Whether or not the duty is payable on the empty drums/containers in which calcium carbide is received by respondent and availed Modvat credit on the said input at the time of clearance from factory ?2. On these aspects, the CEGAT relied upon an earlier judgment rendered in IOL v. Collector of Central Excise in which the CEGAT, West Regional Bench at Mumbai negatived the contention of the Revenue that under the Modvat Rules, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)183CTR(SC)20; [2003]262ITR567(SC)
ORDER1. Leaving the question of law open, inasmuch as the appellants conceded that in the facts of the case the respondents would be entitled to relief even if the appellants' submissions were accepted by this court, we do not interfere with the judgments of the High Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2322; 2003(4)ALT9; JT2003(4)SC127; 2003(4)SCALE209; (2003)5SCC585; [2003]3SCR870
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The father of the appellant Nos. 2, 4 & 5 to 7, late B. Chandrashekhar Reddy, the husband of appellant No. 3, filed tow separate declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings), Act, 1973. By Order dated 23.1.1977, the Tribunal held that family of late B. Chandrashekhar Reddy was entitled to hold one standard holding under the Act and the excess of 4.3360 standard holdings was held to be surplus land. Aggrieved by this Order, an appeal was preferred before the Land Reform Appellate Tribunal as LRA No. 1107/77 which was partly allowed. Aggrieved by this Order, a revision petition C.R.P. No. 7171/79 was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, during the pendency of the Revision, B. Chandrashekhar Reddy died and his LRs were impleaded. Pending this Revision application, there was a State amendment to Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act whereby Section 29A was inserted. The appellants contended that they were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2475; 2003(5)ALT9(SC); [2003(97)FLR805]; 2003(2)JKJ268[SC]; JT2003(4)SC273; (2003)3MLJ95(SC); 2003(4)SCALE281; (2003)5SCC373; [2003]3SCR877; 2003(3)SLJ303(SC); (20
ORDER1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is before us in theseappeals questioning the validity and correctness of thejudgment and order passed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court. The appellant-State Government issued anotification containing guidelines and procedure forrecruitment to the post of 1715 excise Constables,pursuant to which the Commission of Excise notified thevacancies to the Employment Exchange initiating theprocess of recruitment. Dates for interview werescheduled between 19.10.1994 and 23.10.1994 and dateswere fixed for verification of original certificatesbetween 25.10.1994 and 29.10.1994. Thereafter, onaccount of announcement of General Elections to theLegislative Assembly, recruitment process was stopped asElection Notification had been issued on 1.11.1994. Bythe Memo dated 21.12.1994, in the light of the decisionof introducing total prohibition in the State of AndhraPradesh, the process for recruitment of 1715 ExciseConstables was cancelled. The results of the interv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)186CTR(SC)77; [2003]264ITR469(SC); (2003)11SCC338
ORDER1. The following questions were referred to the High Court for consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the cinema theatre a plant entitled to depreciation and extra shift allowance as applicable to a plant ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the cinema building is a tool and an apparatus for carrying on the activity and therefore a plant and is not the above finding, wrong, unreasonable and against law and fact ?' 2. The matter was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by answering the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The second question was not answered in view of the fact that it was really consequential to the first question. In deciding the matter the Division Bench had relied upon a Full Bench decision of the High Court in CIT v. Hotel Luciya : [1998]231ITR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(4)AWC2787(SC); JT2003(6)SC91
ORDER1. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) by a deed dated April 16, 1990 leased a piece of land measuring about 3,650 acres to the second respondent Parwana Co-Operative Group Housing Society. The society constructed flats for its members with the funds contributed by the members. Flat No. A-37 was allotted by the society to a member by name, Prashant Kumar Roy to be jointly held with Pranab Roy (hereinafter referred to as the allottees'). On February 1995 the allottees entered into an agreement with the first respondent by which the allottees agreed to sell their rights in the flat to the first respondent for a consideration of Rs. 5,51,000/- which was paid by the first respondent to the allottees. Possession of the flat was given to the first respondent. The allottees appointed and constituted Mr. Ramesh Chandra husband of the first respondent as their lawful general power of attorney holder authorising him to execute on their behalf a conveyance deed in favour of the first respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4006; [2003(97)FLR1003]; 2003(2)KLT922(SC); 2003(4)SCALE197; (2003)11SCC632; [2003]3SCR826; 2003(2)SLJ380(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In these appeals the scope, content and ambit of Rule 8, Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (in short the 'KSSR') is the pivotal issue. Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court under challenge.2. Parties are litigating in the following factual background. Non-official respondents and the appellants were originally appointed in the Rural Development Department on different posts. Subsequently, the said respondents joined the services of the Co-operative Department. A fixed percentage of posts in the Co-operative Department are to be made by transfer. Non-official respondents applied to the Kerala Public Service Commission (in short the 'Commission') and on being selected joined the Co-operative Department. Question arose whether the benefit of Rule 8 of the KSSR is available to a person who is appointed to a post in another service and whether the lien of such a member continued in the former service. Controversy was whether their na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2496; 2003(87)ECC242; 2003(154)ELT336(SC); 2003(4)SCALE259; (2003)5SCC216; [2003]3SCR852
B.P. Singh, J.1. This batch of appeals involve common questions and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The revenue is the appellant in all the appeals impugning the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in the appeals preferred by the respective respondents.3. In C.A. No. 7165 of 2000 the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II, has impugned the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 29th June, 2000 whereby the Tribunal while upholding the plea of the respondent that the process of cold rolling of steel strips from hot rolled strips does not amount to manufacture of a new excisable commodity, remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner so that the respondent may be able to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner on the question whether they had not passed on the burden of duty to their customers.4. In C.A. Nos. 7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(5)SC613; (2003)10SCC185
ORDER1. The appellant in this appeal was charged for offences punishable under sections 302 and 376 for having committed the rape and murder of one Vaishnavi on 15th January, 1996. The learned sessions judge, south Arcot Vallalar division, Cuddalore, after trial found the accused guilty of offence charged against him and convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He also found him guilty of offence punishable under section 376 IPC, he sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal the High Court of judicature at Madras has confirmed the said conviction and sentence and it is against the said conviction the appellant is before us in this appeal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal before us is that on 15th January, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m. while PW-2 Kamalakannan was returning from the agricultural field in which he was working, he found the dead body of Vaishnavi with injuries all over her body ...
Tag this Judgment!