Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(165)ELT487(SC)
ORDER1. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal in this case has found as follows :'The work order indicates that for installing the storage system rails flush with floor level is indicated and civil work is required such as digging of trench and refilling it with concrete etc.'and on that basis held that the storage system installed at site is a permanent fixture fixed to the ground which could not be removed from the place of installation and decided the matter. We do not think, in this case we can re-examine the facts and decide otherwise. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)850; 2004(1)BLJR673; JT2004(2)SC582; 2004(2)SCALE580; 2004(2)LC800(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 1995, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1995, 169 of 1995 and 146 of 1995 by which the High Court was pleased to acquit respondents 1 to 4 who had been found guilty of charges under Section 302 r/w. Section 307 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The appellant in Crl. A. No. 1844-46 of 1996 is a person aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, being closely related to the deceased persons. Criminal Appeal Nos. 3036-38 of 1996 are at the instance of the State of Rajasthan impugning the same judgment of the High Court.2. Prithvi, the appellant in the above set of appeals, at the material time when the incident occurred, was aged about 13 years. He used to reside, along with his cousin-sister deceased Kumari Lali, with his Uncle, deceased Hansraj and Aunt, deceased Mahadi, in village Kotputali. Hansraj and his elder ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(93)ECC657; 2004(166)ELT23(SC); (2004)11SCC798
ORDER1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 30th April, 2001. The question before the Tribunal was whether the respondents are entitled to exemption of Notification No. 8/98-CE., dated 2nd June, 1998. Under this Notification certain goods were exempted from payment of excise duty. However, the exemption was not available if the goods bore a brand name or trade name (whether registered or not) of another person. Explanation to the Notification defines the brand name as follows :-'Explanation. For the purposes of this notification - (A) 'brand name' or 'trade name' or shall mean a brand name or trade name whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, such a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which issued in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR566]; JT2004(2)SC455; (2004)IILLJ807SC; 2004(2)SCALE559; (2004)3SCC265; 2004(2)SLJ451(SC); (2004)2UPLBEC1620
Brijesh Kumar J.1. This Petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the pensioners all of whom are said to be over 75 years of age and had been serving the Assam Oil Company Limited, having retired on or before October 13, 1981. These petitioners claim benefit of the revised pension scheme as made admissible to the retirees of Indian Oil Corporation without any distinction or cut-off date of retirement.2. The Assam Oil Company Ltd. as well as the Burmah Oil Company Limited were nationalized and taken over by the Government of India by virtue of the Burmah Oil Company (Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Ltd. and of the undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Co.(India Trading Ltd.) Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). As per provisions of Section 5 of the Act, with effect from the appointed date, namely 14.10.1981 the right, title and interest of the said companies in relation to their undertakings in India we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(93)ECC540; 2004(165)ELT481(SC); (2004)11SCC801
ORDER1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), dated 26th February, 1998. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :2. The Respondents are traders in scented supari. They purchase scented supari in bulk from M/s. ARR Nutcon Products. Earlier they used to purchase from M/s. ARR Enterprise. The scented supari is marketed under the brand 'ARR' with a photograph of Shri A.R. Ramaswamy, the founder of ARR group of Companies. The Respondents claimed benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. The said Notification grants exemption, amongst others, to scented supari. However Clause 4 of the Notification provides that the exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. Explanation IX to this Notification reads as follows :'Explanation IX : - 'Brand name' or 'trade name' shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1704; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)739; 2004(92)ECC129; 2004(166)ELT296(SC); JT2004(2)SC528; 2004(2)SCALE527; (2004)3SCC628; 2004(2)LC870(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Since the points involved in the criminal appeals are identical, they are taken up together for disposal.2. Union of India questions legality of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that order dated 31.8.1995 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short 'the SAFEMA') against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was not sustainable in law. For coming to such conclusion, reference was made to orders dated 19th December, 1994 passed under Section 11(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short 'the COFEPOSA') revoking the order of detention and order dated 11.1.1995 passed in earlier writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Reference was made to first proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of SAFEMA for holding that proceedings initiated under the said statute becam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)297; 2004(92)ECC161; 2004(165)ELT257(SC); [2004]267ITR272(SC); 2004(2)SCALE569; (2004)3SCC488; [2006]144STC146(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. Between 1994 and 1999, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the respondent herein, imported various petroleum products and crude oil into India. These goods were carried to different ports in India by vessels chartered for this purpose. Throughout this period, the respondent had cleared the imported goods upon payment of customs duty without protest by the custom authorities.2. On 15th March 2000, the respondent received a show cause notice sent by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, the appellant before us, alleging that the respondent had wilfully misdeclared the value of the goods while making entries under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1062 by deliberately suppressing that the demurrage charges had been paid to the ship owners under the charter party agreements. Since, according to the show cause notice payment for the demurrage had been made through the negotiating bank, the bank charges and the demurrage paid were includible in the customs value of the goods. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1743; (2004)187CTR(SC)193; 2004(92)ECC225; 2004(165)ELT488(SC); [2004]266ITR99(SC); JT2004(4)SC252; 2004(2)SCALE554; (2004)12SCC42
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Leave granted.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of paints, varnishes and other allied products. During the previous year ending on 31st December 1983 pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioner in its returns had disclosed a sum of Rs. 1,33,31,370/- as income. During this period, the appellant-assessee had incurred expenditure on account of customs and excise duty aggregating to Rs. 5,85,87,181/-, which was duly debited to the Profit and Loss Account of the petitioner for the relevant previous year and was also fully paid during the relevant previous year. In addition thereto, the petitioner had also credited to the Profit and Loss Account of the relevant previous year an amount of Rs. 98,25,833/- relatable to the customs and excise duty on the closing stock of inventory by including the said sum in the valuation of such closing stock. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85, the appellant-asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)745; 2004CriLJ1774; JT2004(2)SC539; 2004(2)SCALE537; (2005)9SCC15
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals are inter-linked being directed against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby Devender Kumar Singla, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1036 of 1997 was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), while Mala Singla, the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 1997 was acquitted. Dr. Baldev Krishan Singla, the respondent in the first appeal and the appellant in the second appeal was the complainant on the basis of whose complaint case was registered and the trial was held.2. Complainant's case in a nutshell is as under:On 7th August, 1992 the accused Devender Kumar Singla in the company of his wife the other accused Mala Singla, purchased 7000 Master plus shares for Rs. 1,69,OOO/- from the complainant Baldev Krishan in the presence of Teja Singh, son of Sajjan Singh. The complainant wanted that the payment thereof be made in cash, but accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(2)SC554; 2004(2)SCALE545; (2004)9SCC428; 2004(2)LC910(SC)
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. FIR No. 26/2002 under Sections 307, 120B IPC and 3/25 Arms Act dated 28.1.2002 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur was got registered by Dr. Narendra Rungta on the ground that Mandata Singh, petitioner herein, along with his other accomplices Narain Soni and Bhagirath Singh allegedly assaulted Dr. Narendra Rungta with fire arms with intent to commit murder. Challan has been put up and the accused have been duly charge sheeted. Evidence has been recorded in part. Next date of hearing is 11.3.2004. Another FIR No. 293 of 2002 under Sections 399, 402, 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was got registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur by Dr. Narendra Rungta in which Mandata Singh, Dhan Singh, Krishna Yadav, Bhanwar Singh and Bhagwan Singh were arrayed as accused. Charge sheet as well as additional charge sheet has been filed in this case as well. Dr. Narendra Rungta got registered another FIR No. 542/2002 under Sections 387, 506 IPC dated...
Tag this Judgment!