Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(93)ECC659; 2004(166)ELT21(SC); (2004)10SCC111
ORDER1. Heard parties.2. Appeals admitted.3. In the case of PSI Data Systems Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, : 1997(89)ELT3(SC) , it has been held that a computer and its software are distinct and separate items. It is held that a computer may not be capable of effective functioning unless loaded with software, but still these are not parts of computer and even if they are sold along with the computer their value does not form part of assessable value.4. With greatest of respect, to the learned Judges concerned, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view that even though a computer may not function without a software, still that would not be part of a computer. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act reads as follows :-'4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall -(a) in a case wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(92)ECC457; 2004(165)ELT369(SC); JT2004(3)SC167; (2004)3SCC466
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Doubting the correctness of a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. reported in : [2002]255ITR57(SC) , a Division Bench of this Court has referred the matter to a three-Judge Bench.2. Since common question of law and fact arises in these appeals before us, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience we quote hereinbelow the facts in Civil Appeal No. 7488-7492 of 2001.POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 3. It is convenient to set out, at the outset, the question involved in these appeals. That question is: whether administrative charges collected by the sugar factory for molasses sold from the buyers/allottees on behalf of the State Government in terms of Section 8(5) of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') constituted a duty or impost in the nature of a tax and consequently not includible in the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALT3(SC); 2004(1)ARBLR396(SC); 2004(2)AWC1783(SC); (2004)2CompLJ34(SC); JT2004(3)SC189; RLW2004(2)SC193; 2004(2)SCALE770; (2004)9SCC307
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal arises out of a dispute between the parties to this appeal which under an agreement between the parties has to be referred to arbitration as contemplated under Clause 26 of the agreement between the parties.4. Pending disposal of the said dispute by the arbitrators the respondent herein moved an application under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for the grant of ex parte injunction restraining the appellant herein from transferring or alienating the earmarked alumina lying in the appellant's Silos in Vishakapatnam Port area to any party other than the respondent herein.5. The said application was opposed by the appellant herein on various legal and factual grounds including the maintainability of the application as also the jurisdiction of the trial court to make any interim order under the said provision of the Act. 6. The trial court after hearing the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ARBLR422(SC); 2004(2)AWC1787(SC); JT2004(5)SC50; 2004(2)SCALE772; (2005)9SCC368
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. A partnership firm, M/s Laxmi Fancy Stores had among others Laxmi Narayan Bansal, Om Prakash Bansal, and Jagdish Prasad Bansal as its partners. It carried on business from a shop owned by Laxmi Narayan Bansal located at Topi Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. The three partners were members of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). They were occupying different portions of a residential house at 31, Dahimandi, Daulatganj, Lashkar, Gwalior. On 28th May, 1971 dispute arose between the parties in the matter of repayment of loan of Rs. 2,50,400/- owed by the firm to its creditors. By written agreement of even date, the partners appointed two arbitrators, Mattulal and Nathulal for decision on the said dispute. On 12th June, 1971 award was given by five arbitrators. The award refers to an oral agreement dated 9.6.1971 between the partners by which they had agreed to addition of three more arbitrators and to enlargement of the scope of reference by which the parties sought settlement of all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)764; 2004(2)BLJR879; 2004CriLJ1789; (2004)92CTR(SC)561; 2004(92)ECC561; JT2004(3)SC438; RLW2004(2)SC191; 2004(2)SCALE775; (2004)4SCC105
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent herein was convicted by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Lucknow, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (the Act) and since he was a previous offender, the court awarded him the enhanced punishment provided under Section 31 of the Act and he was sentenced to undergo RI for 15 years with a fine of Rs. 1,50.000; in default to undergo RI for an additional period of 2 years. It is to be noted that the respondent herein was accused No. 2 in the said case before the trial court while A-1 being a first offender was sentenced under Section 21 of the Act to undergo RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac; in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo RI for an additional period of 11/2 years.3. The High Court while entertaining an appeal against the said judgment and conviction filed by the respondent herein, did not grant the respondent's prayer for bail, consequently the said applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)773; (2004)92CTR(SC)564; 2004(92)ECC564; JT2004(3)SC360; 2004(2)SCALE778; (2004)3SCC453
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This appeal by the State of Punjab is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him under Section 18 r/w Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:-On 28th July 1993, S.I. Karam Chand (PW-2), who was working as the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Barnala along with A.S.I. Bhupinder Singh, Head Constable Nishan Singh and some other police officers was carrying out patrolling near the bus stand, Barnala. When the police party came near the bye-pass of the Chowk Bajakhana, they saw the respondent-accused alighting from a bus with a tin box in his hand. The movements of the accused aroused the suspicion of the police party who then apprehended the respondent-accused. They told him that they suspected him of committing an offence under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1004; 2004(4)AWC3455(SC); II(2004)BC574; [2004]120CompCas184(SC); (2005)5CompLJ73(SC); 110(2004)DLT229(SC); 2004(74)DRJ419; JT2004(3)SC198; 2004(2)SCALE805;
S.N. Variava, J.1. These Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case have been filed challenging a scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India (for short RBI).2. At this stage, some relevant facts may be briefly set out: On 2nd August, 1985 Sikkim Banking Overseas Corporation limited got itself registered as a Company in Sikkim. On 22nd October, 1987 its name was changed to Sikkim Banking Limited (for short SBL). On 11th December, 1987 the Banking Regulation Act (for short the Act) became applicable to Sikkim. Section 22 of the Act reads as follows:'22. LICENSING OF BANKING COMPANIES.- (1) Save as hereinafter provided, no company shall carry on banking business in India unless it holds a licence issued in that behalf by the Reserve Bank and any such licence may be issued subject to such conditions as the Reserve Bank may think fit to impose.(2) Every banking company in existence on the commencement of this Act, before the expiry of six months from such commencement, and every other company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(166)ELT19(SC); (2004)10SCC645
ORDER1. This Appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CEGAT') dated 26th September, 1996.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :-The Respondents manufacture Polyester Fibre. In the manufacture of Polyester Fibre, there is an intermediate product known as 'Tow'. Under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules (as it then stood), the intermediate product could be cleared with nil rate of duty provided the final product, manufactured from such intermediate product, was not exempted from the whole of the duty of excise and the final product was not chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Respondents cleared Tow without payment of duty by virtue of this Rule. Thereafter they also cleaned the final product, without payment of duty, on the basis of Notification No. 191/85, dated 28th August, 1985. By this Notification Polyester Fibre which was intended for use under the programme (mentioned in this Notification) was exempted from payment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC215; (2004)12SCC266
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard both sides.3. This is an appeal directed against an order denying bail to the appellants. The appellants are accused in a criminal case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case is that police got an information on 10.7.2003 at 10 p.m. that some drugs may be transported in a Hundai Accent GLS car. On the basis of that information police intercepted a car coming through Madurai Ring Road, Madurai, Chennai at 11.00 p.m. The car was driven by A-3 and the first appellant was found travelling in the car and a search was made and ganja weighing 5 kg. and a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs cash were recovered from the car. The first appellant was arrested at 11.15 p.m. on 10.7.2003 and on the basis of a confessional statement made by her search was conducted in building No. 4/1078-A of Bharat Street, Anbu Nagar, Madurai at about 1.15 a.m. on 11.7.2003. The second appellant was found staying in that house and she was also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)750; 99(2005)CLT146(SC); 2004CriLJ1757; 2004(92)ECC609; 2004(1)JKJ37[SC]; JT2004(3)SC40; 2004(2)KLT122(SC); RLW2004(3)SC365; 2004(2)SCALE715; (2004)4SCC441
B.P. Singh, J. 1. The appellant herein was charged of having committed the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and was put up for trial before the 1st Additional Sessions Court Ernakulam. The case of the prosecution was that on 10th October, 1993 at: about 7.45 p.m. he was found in possession of 25 ampoules of manufactured drug, namely - Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Tidigesic) alongwith three syringes when he was apprehended on the road near Blue Tronics Junction, Palluruthy. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 5th March, 1994 acquitted the appellant of the charge leveled against him. On appeal by the State being Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 1994 the acquittal of the appellant was set aside and the appeal preferred by the State was allowed. The appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to un...
Tag this Judgment!