Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(132)ECC1; 2008(158)LC1(SC); 2008(228)GLT505
ORDER1. M/s. G.T.C. Industries Limited (respondent herein) are the manufacturers of cigarettes. They also get cigarettes manufactured by other small cigarette manufacturers on job work basis. This batch of appeals relate to duty demands and penalties in respect of cigarettes manufactured by the job worker manufacturers on account of G.T.C.2. The period under consideration in these appeals is 1.4.1983 to 31.1.1986 during which period excise duty was leviable on the basis of the sale price declared on the cigarette packets. Intelligence was gathered that the respondents had been evading central excise duty on cigarette consciously and deliberately manufacturing deceptively similar version of certain regular brand showing lower sale price as compared with that of the regular brand. However, selling the deceptively similar brand at the same price as the regular brand in the market and collecting the difference between the two sale price mentioned on the cigarette packets by various means a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(133)ECC1; 2008(159)LC1(SC); 2008(229)ELT321(SC)
ORDER1. Respondent in C.A. No. 163 of 2003, viz., M/s. Electro Mechanical Engineering Corporation (for short, 'M/s. EMEC') was engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel structure, steel doors, windows and structure etc. and is holder of Central Excise Registration No. 18/Alw-1/CH.73/94.2. On a surprise visit undertaken by the officers of the Central Excise Division, Alwar, it was found that M/s. EMEC had floated two front units, viz., M/s. Cold Steel Corporation and M/s. Super Steel Corporation in order to fraudulently avail the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28th February 1993 which exempted clearances of specified goods from payment of duty and concessional duty in the case of certain SSI units.3. Since, according to the Revenue, floating of two front units by M/s. EMEC had resulted in short payment of duty, show cause notices were issued on 01st June 2000 to all the respondent-companies alleging that M/s. EMEC deliberately and wilfully suppressed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC590; 2008(10)SCALE665; 2008AIRSCW5426
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Trade Tax Revision filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `assessee/dealer'). The question involved lies within a very narrow compass, i.e. whether a dealer can make adjustment while depositing tax on the basis of tax out, admitted to be payable, of certain amounts which according to him had been deposited in excess for some other assessment periods. The High Court held that it was permissible under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short the `Act') and U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (in short the `Rules').2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Dealer-respondent was required to pay tax in respect of returns filed for the months of April, May and August, 1977. In respect of the assessment years i.e. 1969-70 to 1971-72, appellant had filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, which were allowed and the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1149; [2009(121)FLR770]; JT2008(9)SC157; (2009)ILLJ642SC; (2008)8MLJ703(SC); 2008(11)SCALE227; (2008)8SCC469; 2009(1)SLJ65(SC); 2008(2)LC1201(SC)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the parties.2. The respondent is a doctor in the service of the appellant - State of Punjab. On 1.8.1991, the respondent was transferred to Makandam. The respondent joined duty on 17.8.1991, but unauthorizedly absented himself from 1.6.1992. As he was absent for nearly five years, the Health and Family Welfare Department issued a charge-sheet dated 28.5.1997 to the respondent. The two charges were : (a) absenting from duty deliberately from 1.6.1992; and (b) disobeying the orders of official superiors. An enquiry was held into the said charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. In regard to first charge, the Enquiry Officer found that the respondent had, in fact, absented himself unauthorisedly from 1.6.1992 to 17.10.1997. But he accepted two explanations given by respondent and concluded that the absence was under compelling circumstances. The first explanation was that those were days of terrorism in Punjab. The second was that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE661; (2008)8SCC292; 2008(8)SCC292; 2008(3)Crimes192; 2008(5)LH(SC)3058
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `accused'). The respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short `NDPS Act') by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Hissar. He found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 17 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years2. Background facts giving rise to the trial are as follows:On 3.1.1988, Ishwar Singh, Sub Inspector along with ASI Ram Kishan and 3 Constables was present at platform No. 3 near Railway bridge. At about 8.30 p.m. one train came from the side of Sadalpur, Chandgi Ram PW was also with the police party at that time. Accused Mai Ram alighted from that train and started walking towards the engine. He was carrying one bag (Ex.P1) in his right hand. On su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)493; 2008(4)AWC3945(SC); JT2008(9)SC480; (2009)2MLJ78(SC); (2009)153PLR494; 2008(11)SCALE637
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. These appeals by special leave are by the beneficiary of acquisition (ONGC), aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents.2. An extent of 13 Hectares 78 Are and 97 sq.m. in Ijapura Village, District Mehsana, Gujarat, was acquired for one of ONGC installations, namely 'Influent pit-Santhal I', under preliminary notification dated 15.9.1992 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act' for short) followed by final notification dated 31.3.1993 under Section 6 of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC, passed an Award dated 16.11.1994 determining the market price as Rs. 2.10 per sq.m. The respondents - land owners, sought reference to civil court claiming Rs. 30 per sq.m.3. Before the Reference Court, the respondents did not place any evidence by way of contemporaneous sale transactions in the neighbourhood. But they placed reliance on some awards passed by the said Court in other acquisition cases, in part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2621; 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)960; 2008(4)AWC3210(SC); 106(2008)CLT698(SC); III(2008)CPJ63(SC); (2008)6MLJ1053(SC); (2008)152PLR733; 2008(10)SCALE643; (2008)8SCC279; 2008AIRSCW6394; 2008(8)SCC279; (2008)3SCC(Cri)483; 2008ACJ2621; 2008(4)LH(SC)2877;
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:3. On 4th January, 2000, the appellant herein purchased a new Tata Sumo vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/-. The vehicle was comprehensively insured on 19th January, 2000 with the Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as `the Company' ) on its purchase value of Rs. 4,30,000/- and a premium of Rs. 10,436/- was paid. This policy expired on 18th January, 2001 and on the very next day the said policy was renewed for a year by the company assessing the value of the vehicle at Rs. 3,59,000/-. This policy expired on 18th January, 2002 but was again renewed on 13th February, 2002 up to 12th March, 2003 on a premium of Rs. 8498/- on the value assessed by the Company at Rs. 3,54,000/- The vehicle met with an accident on 10th September, 2002 on which the appellant informed the company as to what had transpired. The vehicle was removed to Chambal Motors, Kota, Rajasthan, an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)977; 2008(230)ELT583(SC); [2008(118)FLR1011]; 2008(II)OLR(SC)658; 2008(10)SCALE652; (2008)7SCC732; 2008AIRSCW5433; 2008LABIC3587
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 6.3.2006 in C.W.P. No.3526 of 2006.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The appellant Anil Mishra was a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Central Government. He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, challenging the adverse entry made to him for the year 2000-01 vide letter dated 16.1.2002.5. Against that adverse entry he had earlier filed a representation which was rejected by the Chief Commissioner by order dated 14.7.2003. Against the order of the Chief Commissioner, the appellant made further representation to the Central Government, which was rejected by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, which has been conveyed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India by his letter dated 30.9.2004.6. Before the Tribunal the appellant submitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)439; JT2008(8)SC581; 2009(2)KarLJ59; (2008)6MLJ1043(SC); 2008(11)SCALE25:2008AIRSCW7574:2009(1)AIRKarR147
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd of October, 2007 passed in Writ Appeal No. 834 of 2007 whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal of the appellants holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the power under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the 'Act') was validly invoked.3. Before we proceed further, we may note that at the time of issuing notice on the respondents, this Court on 14th of December, 2007 passed the following order :Issue notice.Status quo as on today shall be maintained.4. An application for vacating the interim order was listed for hearing on 16th of July, 2008 and the learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted before us, on instructions, that instead of hearing out the application for vacating the interim order, it would be fit and proper if the Special Leave Petition itself was decided. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the SLP itself w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE530; (2008)11SCC631; 2008(2)LC1025(SC); 2008AIRSCW7487; 2008(4)LH(SC)2855
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals have a common matrix in judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. Two appeals were disposed of by the common judgment. In Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 1998 there were six appellants whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 1998 there was one appellant. In the two appeals before this Court there are five appellants in the Criminal Appeal No. 494/2004, and there are two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 484/2006. All the five appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1494 of 2004 were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and Section 147. Similar was the conviction recorded in case of Satya Narain Singh, one of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2006. Ambika Singh the other appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2006 was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short `Arms Act'). Appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!