Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(128)ECC29; 2008(154)LC29(SC)
ORDER1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act') against the Final Order No.63/2002-C dated 15th March 2002 in Appeal No.E/2659/2001-C passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [for short 'the Tribunal'].2. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether Methane gas classifiable under Chapter Heading 2711.29 specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is liable to excise duty when consumed captively and not marketed.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee was engaged in the manufacture of de-natured Ethyl Alcohol and during the manufacture of de-natured Ethyl Alcohol, a residue known as spent wash comes into existence and the same is reacted in a closed type digester and Methane gas is produced which, in turn, is used by the respondent as fuel in distillery. A show cause notice dated 28th April 2000 was issued by the Revenue, the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(126)ECC173; 2008(152)LC173(SC); 2008(224)ELT349(SC); 2008(4)SCALE354; (2008)11SCC510
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The appellants have filed these appeals under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Final Order No.547-548 of 2001-B dated 11th December 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'], New Delhi whereby the Tribunal has rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and held that the appellants had not satisfied the conditions for availing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23rd July 1996 on the ground that the copper waste and scrap used by the appellants had been imported and had not been generated in the factory of production.2. The issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the scrap imported by the appellants is chargeable to 'NIL' rate of additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are enumerated hereinbelow.4. In the year 1996-97, the appellants imported copper/brass waste and scrap for use in the manufacture of handicr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(13)SC579; 2008(4)SCALE109; (2008)11SCC139; 2009(1)SLJ196(SC); 2008AIRSCW2249; 2008(2)Supreme412; 2008(3)LH(SC)1817
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by Gulabrao Dharmu Pol, respondent No.4 in appeal relating to SLP ( C ) No. 12364/2006 and Mr. Suresh A. Kakkar, respondent No. 4 in appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 1178/2007. 3. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice. The position as obtaining in the appeal relating to S.L.P.(C) No. 12364/2006 is noted as the factual scenario is common to both the appeals. On 18.4.1979, respondent No. 4 was appointed as trainee Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Government of Maharashtra subject to completion of training, practical training and passing of tests in certain subjects. According to the appellants, only if these conditions are fulfilled, he was to be appointed on regular basis to a cadre post in the cadre of Dy.SP/ACP. In other words, it is stated that on completion of the probation satisfactorily, respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)SCALE345; (2008)11SCC617; (2008)13VST514(SC); 2008AIRSCW2299
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant manufactures Steel Ingots. It purchased iron scrap from the Railways in public auction. Iron scrap is melted and converted into the finished products. Appellant had been accorded recognition under Section 4-B (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (for short 'the Act') in terms whereof it became entitled to purchase raw-materials for manufacturing purpose at a concessional rate of tax. In the year 1985-86, it purchased 2532.989 M.T. of iron scrap. Allegedly, the lots contained various categories of iron scraps as it was purchased on 'as is where is basis'. Appellant allegedly was not allowed to sort out the scrap at the time of purchase as the conditions specified therein were:1. The material will be sold of 'AS IS WHERE IS' basis.2. No sorting, picking whatsoever under any circumstances will be allowed.3. The purchaser will be required to take delivery of the material from the lots.4. The purchaser should inspect the lots prior to the auction....3. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1975; 2008(2)AWC2102(SC); JT2008(4)SC374; 2008(4)SCALE306; (2008)5SCC339; 2008(3)ICC713; 2008(2)Supreme335; 2008(2)KCCRSN108
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This contempt proceeding has a chequered history. Petitioner is a cooperative society. It intended to have a plot for construction of houses for its members.A requisition was made for acquisition of land for the said purpose on their own behalf before the State on or about 3.07.1973.2. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated pursuant thereto. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. The owners of the land filed objections under Section 5A of the Act. Overruling the said objection, the proceedings were continued. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued followed by an award. In the said proceedings, 59.94 acres of land was acquired. Petitioner - Society deposited the entire amount of compensation. Several writ applications came to be filed before the Patna High Court questioning the said proceedings. 3. The said writ petitions were allowed by the High Court stating:40. For the reasons aforementioned in considered opinio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2028; 2008(1)ARBLR545(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1596; 2008BusLR418(SC); JT2008(4)SC390; (2008)4MLJ480(SC); 2008(4)SCALE316; (2008)6SCC732; 2008(1)LC553(SC); 2008AIRSCW2686; 2008(3)LH(SC)2041
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Which would be the appropriate court for the purpose of filing of an award by the arbitrator is the question involved herein.2. The said question arises in the following circumstances:Respondent herein admittedly was a contractor of the appellant. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the arbitration agreement was invoked. An arbitrator was appointed.The parties hereto raised their claims and counter-claims before the arbitrator. He made an award of Rs.18,97,729.37 in favour of the respondent. 3. A question of law was raised when the matter ultimately came up before the court arising out of the proceedings for making the said award a rule of the court, and this Court in its judgment dated 29.08.2003 [since reported in : AIR2003SC3660 ], while setting aside the award, directed:40. However, as noticed hereinbefore, this case stands on a different footing, namely, that the arbitrator while passing the award in relation to some items failed and/or neg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1913; JT2008(3)SC611; 2008(2)KLT969(SC); 2008(3)SCALE425; (2008)4SCC171; 2008LABIC1700; 2008(2)Supreme328; 2008(3)LH(SC)1752; 2008AIRSCW2158
H.K. Sema, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 18 of 2004. 3. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1466 and 2743 of 2006 have been filed by the selected candidates. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the entire selection and appointments of Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) in Garhwal Mandal. According to the High Court, the selection and appointments were made in violation of the Rules. By an interim order dated 27.1.2006 this Court stayed the operation of the order of the High Court and, therefore, they are still holding the posts, for which they have been selected.4. An advertisement was issued on 24.6.2002 for Garhwal Region for the selection and appointment of the Physical Education Teachers (L.T. Grade). The requisite qualification indicated in the advertisement is B.P.E. or Graduate with Diploma in Physical E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ALD103(SC); [2008(117)FLR377]; JT2008(4)SC51; (2008)IILLJ645SC; (2008)4MLJ116(SC); 2008(4)SCALE172; (2008)5SCC569; 2008(3)SLJ424(SC); 2008AIRSCW2244; 2008-II-LLJ-645; 2008(2)Supreme350; JT2008(4)SC51
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent herein was appointed as a Technician (Mechanical) on 11.10.1989. He was placed on probation for a period of 12 months. During the period of probation, he was found to be absent for a period from 11.6.1990 to 27.6.1990. He was warned. A lenient view was taken. He was informed that recurrence of such act would be viewed seriously. Period of probation was extended as he was found to be irregular in attendance. 3. On 9.1.1991, he applied for leave on medical grounds. He failed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer of the petitioner despite having been asked in that behalf and as he failed to do so, his leave was not sanctioned. Despite the same, he sought another extension of leave upto 28.2.1991. He was asked to report immediately before the Chief Medical Officer. He was furthermore informed that failure to comply therewith would result in refusal of leave. He did not report to the Chief Medical Officer.4. A charge sheet was issued to him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1955; [2008(117)FLR1191]; JT2008(3)SC622; (2008)IILLJ688SC; (2008)4MLJ105(SC); 2008(4)SCALE77; (2008)5SCC75; 2008AIRSCW2256; AIR2008SC1955; 2008(5)SCC75; 2008-II-LLJ-688; 2008LabIC1778; 2008(2)Supreme376
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent is a research institute. It imparts training to farmers for facilitating improved agricultural production. For imparting training, fees is not charged from the trainees. The trainees are also provided free lodge and boarding. Respondent carries out its function under a deed of trust. It is a subsidiary to Indian Farmers Fertilizers Corporation. Its object is charitable. However, it is stated that the respondent institute also undertaking Poultry Farming, Pisciculture, Cow-Shelter, Dairy Farming, Plantation, Bee-keeping work etc. These jobs are undertaken by way of various projects. Daily wagers are appointed for the said purposes. The employment of daily wagers is a needbased one. 3. Appellants herein and in particular, some of them, claimed to have been working with the respondent institute for a long time. Their services were not being taken from 28.12.1996. They raised an industrial dispute. The State of U.P. in exercise of its power unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR518]; JT2008(3)SC616; (2008)IILLJ663SC; (2008)4MLJ392(SC); 2008(3)SCALE448; (2008)4SCC127; 2009(2)SLJ289(SC); 2008LabIC1775; 2008(2)Supreme331; 2008(3)LH(SC)1845.; 2008AIRSCW2252
S.B. Sinha, J.1. First respondent was appointed as a Driver on daily wages by the appellant roadways. He was a casual employee. He was being paid wages at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. 2. Indisputably, he was continuously working from 4.8.1995. Allegedly, he abandoned the service. First Respondent's contention, however, is that his services were illegally terminated.3. First respondent filed an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying for his reinstatement with full back wages along with continuity of service and other statutory benefits. The said application was allowed by the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, appellant did not adduce any evidence to establish to its contention that workman himself had left his job. Apart from the fact that he was found to be working for more than 240 days during the period of 12 months preceding the date of his termination and furthermore as admittedly the mandatory requirements of Section 25...
Tag this Judgment!