Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(6)SC205; 2008(6)SCALE415; 2008AIRSCW3268; 2008(3)AICLR175; 2008(3)LH(SC)1736
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellant in terms of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').3. The case numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12646/2007 was taken up alongwith Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 12644/2007 filed in respect of a co-accused Dinesh the appellant in Criminal Appeal relating to Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 867/2008. Both the matters were taken up in view of the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 8/2007 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6/2007.4. The application under Section 439(2) was filed by the State of Gujarat through Investigating Officer, C.I.D. (Crime), Gandhinagar for cancellation of bail granted to the appellant by order dated 5.10.2007 by learned Additional City and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(6)SC360; 2008(7)SCALE110; (2008)11SCC670; 2008AIRSCW3262; 2008(2)LH(SC)1527
C.K Thakker, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals are directed against common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 49200-M of 2003 and 30393-M OF 2004. Both the above petitions were filed by the respondents-accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the appellant herein for offences punishable under Sections 468, 406 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).3. Short facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that in 1998, appellant Suneet Gupta entered into a registered Partnership Firm with one Shashi Kant Mangla in the name and style of M/s K.M. Agencies. The said Firm was the stockist and distributor of consumer goods of M/s Johnson & Johnson, a Limited Multinational Company ('M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.' for short). According to the appellant, partnership of M/s K.M. Agencies ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2296; 2008(3)ALT49(SC); 2008(4)BomCR830; 2008(3)CTC528; II(2008)DMC8SC; JT2008(5)SC498; 2009(2)MhLj98; (2008)6MLJ842(SC); 2008(6)SCALE646; (2008)10SCC497; 2008AIRSCW3824; 2008(3)LH(SC)2191
C.K Thakker, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on September 29, 2004 in First Appeal No. 1008 of 1999. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the decree of divorce passed in favour of the appellant- husband by the Family Court, Allahabad on September 13, 1999 in Case No. 209 of 1992.3. Short facts of the case are that the marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnized on May 27, 1974 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. For some time the relations between the parties went on well. A female child Seema was born from the said wedlock in 1980. It is the allegation of the husband that the wife did not co-operate with him and his family members. She started pressurising the husband to live separately from his parents, brothers and sisters. According to the husband, however, he was the eldest son of his parents and was not in a position to oblige the wife by living with her. He had to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(5)SC422; 2008(6)SCALE315; (2008)10SCC382; 2008AIRSCW5872; 2008LABIC3622; 2008(3)Supreme186
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. Both these appeals have been instituted by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttranchal (now Uttrakahand) on September 18, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 802 (S/B) of 2001.3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on August 10, 2000, Roorkee University issued an advertisement for filling up various vacancies in different faculties. The controversy in present appeals relates to the vacancy position in the Department of Mathematics. As observed in the impugned judgment of the High Court, there were six posts of Professors (unreserved) and three posts of Associate/Assistant Professors. Out of three posts, two were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates while one was for General Category: Unreserved (UR). They were to be filled under Flexible Cadre Structure (FCS) in accordance with reserve roaster notified by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under whose control the University was fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(129)ECC195; 2008(155)LC195(SC)
ORDERAshok Bhan and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.1. Assessee-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee') imported watch parts for use in the manufacture of wrist watches. Import duty in the sum of Rs. 11,79,199 was imposed. Assessee did not deposit the import duty in cash but made a debit in the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (for short 'DEPB'). Some of the parts imported were found to be defective/unusable. Assessee applied for re-exporting the same which was allowed. After re-export, Assessee filed a claim for duty drawback of Rs. 11,79,199 under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. A show cause notice was issued to the Assessee as to why the duty drawback claimed be not rejected on the ground that the goods were not easily identifiable. Reply to the show cause notice was given.3. The authority-in-original vide his order dated, 13th October, 1999 rejected the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the goods were not identifiable on physical examination. Being aggrieved, Assessee fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(120)ECC1; 2008(156)LC1(SC)
ORDER1. The present appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944(for short 'the Act') against the judgment and final order dated April 4,2002 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkatta (for short 'the Tribunal') in final order No. A-507, 508/KOL/2002 dated 04.04.2002 in appeals No. E/R-312, 313 of 2001, wherein the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeals relying upon a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ammonia Supply Co. v. CCE, New Delhi 2001(45) RLT 271, in which the Tribunal has held that there was no packing/re-packing, labeling/relabeling or any other activity to make the product marketable.Facts:2. Respondent is a manufacturer of Acetylene, Oxygen amongst other gases and clears the same on payment of appropriate duty of excise. Helium is procured by the respondent from other manufacturers and sold under BOC brand name claimed as a part of its trading activity. Revenue issued a show caus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(SC)107; JT2008(6)SC325; 2008(6)SCALE491; (2008)11SCC398; [2008]13STJ229(SC); 2008[10]STR545; [2007]14STT249; 2008(2)LC677(SC); (2008)16VST115(SC); 2008AIRSCW4970; 2008(3)Supreme257
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Short question arising in the appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner renders any services so as to incur the liability to pay service tax. 2. The factual background leading to the said question may briefly be noticed.Appellants herein entered into an agreement with Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) titled 'Consignment Stockistship Agreement'. 3. Inter alia, on the premise as to why they should not be asked to pay 'services taxes', a show cause notice was issued on the appellant on 20.10.2003. Cause was shown by it saying that no service is being provided by it as a clearing and forwarding agent of GAIL. An order in original was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise on 17.3.2004 directing payment of service tax with interest as also penalties as demanded under the show cause notice. 4. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the appellate authority by a judgment and order dated 15.2.2005. A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(128)ECC3; 2008(154)LC3(SC)
ORDER1. M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') is a manufacturer of wiring harnesses. The manufacture is carried out according to specific orders of automotive and air conditioning industry, against specific contracts. In some cases the appellant received certain component parts of wiring harness, free of charge, from their buyers. These components were also incorporated in the wiring harness. In such cases, the value of the free supply component parts were not added to the price of wiring harnesses while fixing their assessable value and paying excise duty on them. Appellant searched the premises of the respondent and came to know that the respondent was not paying duty on the free supplies received by it from their buyers and thus suppressed the information with the intention to evade payment of duty.2. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing to demand duty of Rs. 96,01,561/- for the period from March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(SC)97; [2008]300ITR302(SC); 2008(2)KLT584(SC); 2008(6)SCALE477; (2008)11SCC573
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation/ application of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') vis-`-vis the provision regarding Block Assessment is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.4.2004 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in ITA No. 172 of 2000 and WPC No. 23449 of 2003. A search was conducted by the Officers of the Income Tax Department in the residence as also in the business premises of the assessee, his sons and other associates, consequent whereupon, it was proposed to transfer the cases pertaining to the assessee to the Income Tax (Inv.) Circle, Calicut to facilitate effective and coordinate investigation. An order was passed to that effect by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore under Section 127(2) of the Act. A notice was issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC of the Act to file a return setting forth the total income including the undisclosed income for the block...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(5)SC508; 2008(6)SCALE563; (2008)5SCC416; 2008(3)SLJ333(SC); 2008AIRSCW3282
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of GOMs. No.368 dated 18.8.1999 is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 21.8.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos.8551/01, 14651/2000 and 16842/2000. 3. Respondents herein were Private Secretaries (PSs) of the Secretaries of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Appellants of the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.10137 of 2007 are the Section Officers (SOs) working in the Secretariat of the Government of Andhrapradesh.4. Indisputably, the post of 'Private Secretary' (PS) as also that of the 'Section Officer' (SO) are the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. The total number of posts in the cadre of Sections Officers was 365. Indisputably, 10 PSs attached to the Secretaries of the Government of Andhra Pradesh have to undergo training for a period of two years as a SO. The number of PSs at a given point of time was 25. The prom...
Tag this Judgment!