Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1171(SC); 2004(1)CTLJ210(SC); [2004(101)FLR452]; (2004)IILLJ482SC; 2004(1)SCALE403; (2004)2SCC177
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. The order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 10.2.1997 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in C.O. No. 11843 (W) of 1996 is under challenge in this appeal.2. Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') invited applications for appointment of a dealer relating to a retail outlet, on 22nd June, 1987. It was open to all but preference was to be given to the unemployed youth. The appellant was given the dealership as an unemployed youth. The appellant was engaged as a Trainee. Professional Sales Representative with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited from 23.2.1987 to 3.4.1989. He wrote 'NIL' against the relevant column relating to employment. The respondent No. 5 who had also applied for dealership filed objections before the Oil Selection Board stating that the appellant was an employee and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of preferential treatment. The Oil Selection Board prepared a panel of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(164)ELT228(SC)
ORDER1. This Appeal is against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, dated 9/13 February, 1998. The question for consideration is whether the intermediate product manufactured by the Appellants is excisable. It appears that on 23rd December, 1985 a Notification was issued by which exemption was granted if the intermediate product was used for a particular product. After that Notification the Appellants made representation that their product should be exempted even for the earlier period. The authorities below have held that the fact that the Appellants made such a representation itself shows that the product was excisable. We find no infirmity in this reasoning. We, therefore, see no reason to consider validity of other reasons or to interfere. The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.2. We are told that some representation has already been made to the Government to exempt the products for an earlier period also. We are sure that if any suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(92)ECC289; 2004(164)ELT129(SC); 2004(6)SCALE420; (2004)9SCC22
ORDER1. This appeal is against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 22nd October, 1997.Briefly stated the facts are as follows :-The respondents manufacture diesel engines. While selling diesel engines they recover from all customers a sum of Rs. 300/- ostensibly towards security deposit for installation, customer training and cost of labour for repairs done by the dealer during the warranty period. The question is whether this amount is to be included while calculating the assessable value of the diesel engine.The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 1st December, 1987 held as a finding of fact that the amount of Rs. 300/-, which was realised, was nothing but a recovery towards 'after sales service charges' to promote the marketability of the goods. The Appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 11th October, 1989. While so dismissing a finding is given to the following effect :-'... In the circumstances...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(164)ELT229(SC)
ORDER1. The Issue raised in this appeal is whether the cost of metal/tin containers used in packing of manufactured goods, viz. vegetable products is includible in the assessable value of the goods. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the security deposit equivalent to the cost of the said packing material has been collected and there was no occasion on which the durable packing materials were returned and security deposit refunded. Therefore, it is submitted that under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (d) of Section 4(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it stood at the relevant point of time, the cost of the said packing material has to be included in the assessable value, notwithstanding the contract between the parties stipulating the return of the containers. 11 is contended that the contract was never acted upon as there was no instance of the return of tin containers under the terms of the contract. The contract, it is contended, was a mere subterfug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(164)ELT136(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal is against an order dated 5th December, 1997 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The question raised is whether the Appellants are liable to pay excise duty in respect of sleepers supplied by them to the railways.2. It was submitted that the Appellants were not manufacturing any sleepers but were only supplying timbers to the railways. This submission is contrary to the admitted position. In reply to the show cause notice sent on 10th November, 1988, the Appellants admitted that sleepers were being manufactured by them. In the reply it was only contended that there was no commercial activity in such manufacturing. Also show cause notices had been issued to the Appellants for earlier periods also. Even at that stage it had been admitted that the Appellants were manufacturing sleepers. Duty was levied for the earlier periods. That duty has been paid by the Appellants. This also shows that it is an admitted position that sleepers were bei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(92)ECC504; 2004(164)ELT230(SC); (2004)2GLR1808(SC); (2004)3SCC704
ORDER1. This Appeal is against the Order dated 12th January, 1998 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :Prior to 1st March, 1979, duty was levied on un-manufactured tobacco. With effect from 1st March, 1979, that duty was withdrawn. A Notification bearing No. 30/79-C.E., dated 1st March, 1979 was issued which, inter alia, provided as follows :'In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Additional Duties of Excise Act), the Central Government hereby exempts cigarettes of the description specified in column (1) of the Table hereto annexed, and falling under sub-item II(2) of Item No. 4 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excises Act), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ARBLR448(SC)
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The short question that arises in this case is whether the Arbitrator was required to give reasons in the Award.3. The High Court by the impugned judgment has set aside the Award merely on the ground that the Arbitrator had not given reasons for giving his Award. We do not find the view taken by the High Court as correct. Unless there is a statutory requirement to give reasons, an Arbitrator cannot be said to have committed illegality if no reasons are given in the Award.4. For the aforesaid reason, the judgment and order under challenge is set aside and this appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(164)ELT132(SC)
ORDER1. In this appeal, the question involved pertains to refund of the excise duty, which according to the respondent was realised at a higher rate not applicable to it. Accordingly, the respondent moved an application under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for refund of the excess amount. The application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Digboi, on the ground that it was beyond time as six months had already lapsed from the relevant date. The appeal preferred by the respondent was, however, allowed by the Collector (Appeals) which gave rise to filing of an appeal by the Revenue before the CEGAT. The CEGAT upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector holding that the claim for the period beyond six months from the relevant date would not be admissible.2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CEGAT the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court by means of a brief order disposed of the writ petition o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1815; 2004(176)ELT24(SC); JT2004(1)SC232; 2004(1)SCALE341; (2004)3SCC214
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 19877/01, 6064/02 & 8657/02).2. The Bombay Port Trust (hereinafter 'BPT', for short), presently constituted and governed by the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, and now known as The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been the subject matter of several legislations governing its constitution, administration, powers and duties, some of which are The Bombay Port Trust Act, 1873, The Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879 and the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Bombay, presently known as Mumbai, continues to be the commercial capital of the country. In spite of the development of several other ports having taken place along the coasts of India, some of them being of recent origin, the Bombay port continues to be the Gateway of India for international trade and commerce. Space is scarce in Mumbai as it is an island, and demands on its land are heavy in view of the ever-g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1488; 2004CriLJ900; 109(2004)DLT348(SC); 2004(75)DRJ62; RLW2004(1)SC108; 2004(1)SCALE377; (2004)9SCC63
ORDER1. This petition has been filed for transfer of Criminal Complaint No. 517 of 2001 under Section 302, 201 and 34 IPC (titled as Smt. Leelawati v. Ramesh Chand and Ors.) for investigation from Faridabad to Delhi. On 14.8.2003, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad (Haryana) to carry out further investigation with regard to the alleged incident of death of Rajwati, daughter of the petitioner and submit a fresh report to this Court. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad has submitted a report on 06.10.2003 stating that fresh investigation in the alleged incident has been completed and offences under Section 302 IPC are found to have been committed by Ramesh Chand and under Section 201 IPC by Kanshi Ram, Shanti and Jugita. It is also reported that the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.2. After submission of the above report, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners now...
Tag this Judgment!