Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1690; 2007(118)ECC79; 2007LC79(SC); 2007(211)ELT521(SC); JT2007(6)SC355; 2007(6)SCALE435
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. From the impugned judgment dated 1.1.2002 delivered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT', for short), New Delhi, vide Appeal No. E/1644 and 1645 of 2000-C, C.A. No. 5322 of 2002 and C.A. No. 1953-54 of 2003 have been filed by the assessees and by the Department respectively. For the sake of convenience and clarity we proceed to decide each of the following civil appeals serially.C.A. No. 5322/2002-filed by M/s. J. Mitra & Co.Ltd. (Assessee)2. In this civil appeal we are concerned with the classification of biotech products. The said assessee was engaged in the manufacture of blood-grouping reagents and diagnostic and laboratory reagents. It had obtained registration on 10.9.99 for the manufacture and clearances of the following products:(1) Anti-A Mono Clonal(2) Anti-B Mono Clonal(3) Anti-Decoders Mono Clonal(4) Anti-Decoders Mono Clonal(5) Anti-Decoders 1gM Mono Clonal(6) Anti-Decoders 1gG Mono ClonalThe above six items are called Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(211)ELT519(SC); JT2007(6)SC372; 2007(6)SCALE361; (2007)4SCC471; (2007)7VST278(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. On 20.12.2001 Deferment Certificate was granted by the Sales Tax Department to the respondent-assessee for the period April 30, 1997 to 29th April 2004. Under that Certificate the quantum of benefit of tax deferment was Rs.62,47,500/-. The said certificate stated that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of tax deferment subject to the maximum of Rs.62,47,500/-. The assessee had commenced its commercial production on April 30, 1997. The assessee had applied to the Industries Department for grant of Eligibility Certificate. That Certificate was however granted only on 13.9.2001 for 84 months ( 7 years) commencing from April 30, 1997. The Deferment Certificate was given by the Sales Tax Department based on the Eligibility Certificate only on 21.12.2001. After the grant of Eligibility Certificate on 21.12.2001 the assessee availed the deferment of tax for the period from 1.10.2001 to 29.4.2004 amounting to Rs.33,48,600, as against its total entitlement of Rs.62,47,5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1751; 2007(212)ELT12(SC); JT2007(6)SC578; 2007(6)SCALE474; (2007)4SCC476; [2007]8STT253; (2007)7VST267(SC); 2007(4)SCC476; 2007(4)KCCR2417; 2007(4)AIRKarR1222007AIRSCW2879
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Leave granted.2. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether 'dog feed' and 'cat feed' sold by the appellant-assessee attracts Nil rate of duty under Entry 5 of First Schedule of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said entry was inserted vide Karnataka Act No. 27/05 with effect from 7.6.2005.We quote hereinbelow Entry 5 of First Schedule of the Act:5. Animal feed and feed supplements, namely, processed commodity sold as poultry feed, cattle feed, pig feed, fish feed, fish meal, prawn feed, shrimp feed and feed supplements and mineral mixture concentrates, intended for use as feed supplements including de-oiled cake and wheat bran. 3. According to the appellant, dog feed and cat feed are the products which would fall in the category of animal feed under Entry 5. According to the appellant, Entry 5 deals with animal feed, feed supplements, namely, processed commodity sold as poultry f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(6)SC477; 2007(4)KLT111(SC); 2007(6)SCALE690; (2007)6SCC190; 2007AIRSCW3211
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel on both sides.3. The appellants in this appeal were included in a ranked list for appointment to the post of Overseer Grade- II in the Public Works and Irrigation Departments. The ranked list was published on 31.3.2001. Its normal validity was one year. But if no new list was prepared, its validity extended to three years. No new list was prepared. Therefore, the list was operative till 31.3.2004. 4. In the list prepared, diploma holders were not included on the ground that they possessed a qualification higher than the one required. The diploma holders filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Kerala Public Service Commission to include them in the ranked list. On 18.2.2003, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed that the ranked list be recast including the diploma holders also. This caused some delay in the operation of the list prepared on 31.3.2001.5. Even pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2766; 2007(6)SCALE644
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 3 is an accused under Section 302/120B IPC. His bail application was rejected by the trial Court. The same was confirmed by the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1630/2005 filed by him was also rejected by this Court by an order dated 05/12/2005.3. It appears that his subsequent application for bail filed before the trial Court was also unsuccessful. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 850/2006 before the Hon'ble S.R. Nayak, Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur (as His Lordship then was). By an impugned order dated 03/05/2006, the Chief Justice of the High Court granted bail to the respondent-accused on his executing a bond in a sum of Rupees One Lakh with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.4. For the purpose of disposal of this case, it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of this appeal. Suffice it to say that as many as 27 material prosecution witnes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2743; JT2007(8)SC540; 2007(6)SCALE232; 2007AIRSCW2745; 2007LawHerald(SC)1583; 2007(4)AIRKarR34.
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant herein was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith several other persons namely Hukum, Girdhari, Patiram, Narayan and Prahlad. 3. Prosecution case shortly stated is as under:Savitribai and other members of her family were sitting in the courtyard of the former's house at about 4 p.m. on 2.3.1991. Prahladsingh, Ambaram, Patiram, Hukum, Narayan and Girdhari were drinking liquor. They started hurling filthy abuses. Savitribai came out from her house and asked them to behave themselves. They adopted a hostile stance. They started assaulting her, causing injuries inter alia by throwing stones. When Accused Hukum hurled a stone at her, Prem Singh, brother of Savitribai intervened. He was caught by them. Hukum pelted a stone at him causing injury on his head. Ambaram, who was carrying an axe, inflicted a blow on his head from its blunt side. Other accused persons entered her house. Patir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)SCALE284; (2007)9SCC97; (2007)7VST214(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellants-State of Orissa and the Orissa Forest Department Corporation Ltd. (in short the 'Corporation') in these appeals call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court allowing the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').2. Writ petitions were filed by the respondents on the plea that the transactions between them and the Corporation were in course of inter-State trade and, therefore, only sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Act') and not the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short the 'State Act') was leviable. Accordingly, prayer was made for a declaration that levy and collection of tax under the State Act was unauthorized, without jurisdiction and the excess amount collected from them under the guise of State sales tax should be refunded.3. Background facts as presented by the appellants are as follows:The respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR718]; JT2007(6)SC272; 2007(6)SCALE348; (2007)6SCC704; 2008(1)SLJ84(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of a purported circular letter dated 21.01.1993 falls for our consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition No. 50 of 2004.2. Before embarking upon the said question, we may, however, notice the admitted fact of the matter.3. Respondent was recruited to Indian Railway Traffic Services on or about 1.02.1982. He was promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Grade. He was also placed in the selection grade on 1.07.1994. The post of Senior Administrative Grade fell vacant. Respondent was eligible to be considered therefore. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened for preparation of a panel for promotion to the said post. Respondent's name was also included therein. Inter alia on the premise that a vigilance case was pending against him, sealed cover procedure was adopted by the DPC purported to be in terms of the circular in question providing for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(8)SC335; 2007(6)SCALE229; 2007AIRSCW273
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. One Umra advanced a petty sum of Rs. 5 to Multana by way of loan. On 31.10.1985 at about 9 p.m, he asked him to pay the said amount back to him. What was his response thereto is not known. Multana, however, started hurling abuses on him. Bachni, the mother of appellant came there and said 'UMRA DO KAUDI KA LADKA HAI, ISKO MITTI MAIN MILA DO. MAIN ISKI EENT SE EENT BAJA DUNGI' Whereupon Multana and Ranjeet caught hold of the deceased. Appellant was carrying a big knife with him. He inflicted three blows on the deceased with the said knife. The deceased ran towards his house pressing his abdomen by his hands. He could not run for a long distance. He fell down. P.W. 1, Amar Singh, father of the deceased who had been coming back to his house alongwith P.W. 4, Jeet Singh from the market witnessed the entire incident. It was also witnessed by P.W. 7, Birsa Singh. The deceased was taken to the hospital immediately. He, however, was declared dead. A First Info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)AWC2406(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN33; 2007(5)CTC294; JT2007(6)SC641; (2007)4MLJ955(SC); (2007)148PLR771; 2007(6)SCALE374; (2007)10SCC761; 2007(1)LC669(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Application of the 'Dvyamushyayana' form of adoption is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 29.6.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No. 1187 of 2003 affirming a judgment and decree dated 26.7.2003 passed by the Learned XXII City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 4472 of 1991 dismissing the suit for declaration and partition as also separate possession filed by the appellant herein.3. One S.M. Thimadasappa was the owner of the properties. He and his wife Smt. Puttamma (original defendant No. 1, since deceased) had a son known as Krishnappa. S.M. Thimadasappa had a brother named Sohur Thimmaiah who was issueless. Thimadasappa and his wife gave plaintiff, Krishnappa in adoption to Sohur Thimmaiah in a ceremony held therefore on 14.2.1995. The deed of adoption admittedly did not contain any stipulation that the said adoption was in 'Dvyamushyayana' or in other form.4. Appel...
Tag this Judgment!