Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(215)ELT481(SC); JT2007(10)SC552; 2007(10)SCALE510; (2007)7SCC512; [2007]11STT1; 2007AIRSCW5586
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the 'Tribunal') holding that the respondent which is a small scale industrial unit (in short the 'SSI Unit') is eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The respondents are manufacturers of aerated water. They are SSI units. They manufactured aerated water and cleared the same after affixing the brand name 'Citra' during the period 1993-94. The brand name belonged to another person namely M/s Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd. (in short 'M/s Limca') which was eligible for exemption (as SSI unit) under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993. These facts are not in dispute. The Department by show cause notice (in short 'SCN') proposed to recover Central Excise Duty on the clearances of the aforesaid branded goods effected by the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3131; 2007(4)AWC3992(SC); 2007(2)BLJR2476; (SCSuppl)2007(4)CHN110; 2008(1)CTLJ9(SC); JT2007(10)SC545; 2007(10)SCALE549; (2007)8SCC75
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants. Challenge before the Division Bench was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants. Challenge in the Writ Petition was to the order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Council (in short 'NDMC'). By the said order, the appellants were held to be unauthorized occupants of the premises in dispute namely, that of Chanakya Cinema Complex situated in Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. Prayer was also to set aside the letter dated 22.1.2002 issued by the NDMC seeking the vacant and peaceful possession of the aforesaid complex. The resolution passed by the NDMC dated 28.8.2001 was also impugned to the extent it allowed the appellants to continue in possession from 1st October, 2000 to 30th September, 2003 only. Prayer was also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT804(SC); 2007CriLJ4684; 2007(4)MPHT251(SC); 2007(II)OLR(SC)720; 2007(11)SCALE3; (2007)7SCC623
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 2000 dated August 11, 2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein by the order which reads thus;In spite of notice, nobody appears for the petitioner today. Crl. Rev. P. 42/2000 is accordingly dismissed in default for non-prosecution.4. The matter relates to administration of criminal justice. As held by this Court, a criminal matter cannot be dismissed for default and it must be decided on merits. Only on that ground the appeal deserves to be allowed.5. Thus in Bani Singha and Ors. v. State of U.P. : 1996CriLJ3491 , a three Judge Bench of this Court held that a criminal appeal should not be dismissed in default but should be decided on merits. If despite notice neither the appellant nor his counsel present, the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR189]; JT2007(10)SC563; 2007(10)SCALE513; 2007AIRSCW7071
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10th July, 2006 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5385 of 1998 whereby the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the award dated 5th June, 1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi, U.P. in Adjudication Dispute No. 89 of 1994 directing re-instatement of the appellant with continuity of service and payment of full back wages by the respondent U.P. State Sugar Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). 3. The following reference was made for adjudication before the Labour Court:Whether the termination of service by the employer of their workman Ram Nayak from 1st June 1990 was bad or invalid.The said reference came to be registered as Adjudication Dispute No. 89 of 1994 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi, U.P. The appellant claimed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(121)ECC81; 2007(147)LC81(SC); 2007(215)ELT489(SC); JT2007(10)SC577; 2007(10)SCALE500; (2007)8SCC89; [2007]11STT6
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This civil appeal is filed by the Department under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the judgment dated 20.7.2001 delivered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT') in Appeal No. E/1758/2000.2. The issue which arises in this civil appeal is as to whether in the absence of any 'sale', Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would have any application or not. The contention of the assessee is that in the case of 'stock transfer' there is no 'sale' and, therefore, Rule 57CC was not applicable. This contention has been accepted by the Tribunal, hence this civil appeal.3. The assessee is engaged in manufacture of paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff. The assessee is availing the benefit of MODVAT Scheme under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, '1944 Rules'). The assessee is also manufacturing pulp falling under Chapter 47 of the Central Excise Tariff, which is chargeable to n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(121)ECC127; 2007LC127(SC); 2007(215)ELT484(SC); JT2007(10)SC521; 2007(10)SCALE535; (2007)8SCC404
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (in short 'CESTAT') allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. By the impugned judgment CESTAT held that the Software-loaded Hard Discs are classifiable under Heading 85.24 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1985 (in short 'Tariff Act'). It was further held that respondent will be eligible for duty exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus as amended. It was held that rest of the machine would be classified under Heading 84.71. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The Department had demanded customs duty of about Rs.5.9 crores from the respondent by classifying goods imported by them under Heading 84.71 of the First Schedule of the Act and denying them benefit of exemption Notification No.21/2000-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 (as amended). Demand was questioned before CESTAT. An application seeking waiver of pre-deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3136; [2007(115)FLR613]; JT2007(10)SC556; 2007(10)SCALE485; (2007)8SCC621; 2008(2)SLJ187(SC); 2007AIRSCW5683.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of an advertisement in the light of a circular of the State of Madhya Pradesh as regards recruitment of handicapped persons to some posts is in question in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 1.5.2003 and 23.08.2004 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 40 of 2000 and M.C.C. (Contempt) No. 222 of 2003.3. The State took recourse to a special drive for filling up the vacant posts in the reserved category candidates, viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. In a circular letter issued on 29.03.1993, it was stated:SUBJECT: SPECIAL DRIVE FOR FILLING UP RESERVED POSTS FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONSThe State Government has reserved 3% posts (1% for blinds and 2% for other physically handicapped persons) for disabled persons. By the Notification of the State Government vide No. 50-2532-1(3)/80 dated 12th of February, 1991, exemption for 10 years in the prescribed age limit has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3159; [2007(115)FLR190]; JT2007(10)SC530; (2007)6MLJ723(SC); 2007(10)SCALE475; (2007)10SCC609; 2008(1)SLJ443(SC); 2007AIRSCW5722; 2007-III-LLJ-829(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Meaning of the term 'broken period' for the purpose of grant of pension while implementing a voluntary retirement scheme is the question involved herein.3. Respondent was working with the appellant - Bank. The terms and conditions of grant of pension to the employees of the Bank are governed by the Indian Bank Employee's Pension Regulation 1995 (for short 'the Regulation'); Regulation 28 whereof, as amended with effect from 8.06.2002, reads as under:28. Superannuation Pension Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or Settlements. Provided that, with effect from 1st day of September, 2000 pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any Scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3156; 2007CriLJ4685; 2007(10)SCALE479
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This application for initiation of a contempt proceeding has been filed for alleged disobedience of this Court's order dated 03.09.2003, relevant portion whereof reads as under:We are also unable to issue any direction to the first respondent to allow the third respondent to sit at the Intermediate Examination at this stage; having regard to the fact that relevant rules in this regard have not been placed. We may, however, observe that if he is entitled to take the said Examination in law, he may be permitted.2. Respondent No.1 herein appeared as a private candidate in the Intermediate Examination conducted by U.P. Board of High Schools & Intermediate Education from Janta Inter College, Azamgarh (U.P.). His result was withheld. A provisional mark-sheet was purported to have been issued to him without showing that his result for Intermediate Examination had been withheld. On the basis of the said purported provisional mark- sheet, he pursued further studies and complete...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007ACJ2468; AIR2007SC3141; 2007(6)ALD1(SC); 2008(3)JKJ35[SC]; JT2007(10)SC491; (2007)6MLJ1096(SC); 2007(10)SCALE495
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case multiplier of '15' ought to have been applied by the High Court in its impugned judgment falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a common judgment and order dated 29.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal against Order No. 528 of 2000 and C.M.A. No. 3350 of 1999. 3. Before embarking upon the said question, we may notice the basic fact of the matter which is not in dispute. Claimant was aged about 38 years on the date of accident which took place on 26.01.1995. He was a carpenter working in a company. His monthly salary was said to be Rs. 4500/-. He had 15 years of experience in woodcrafts. His parents, wife, two daughters and one son were dependant on him. On the night of 25.01.1995, he was coming back to his house. When he was riding on a two-wheeler, he met with the accident having been hit by a bus belonging to the appellant corporation. He wa...
Tag this Judgment!