Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(134)ECC7; 2008(160)LC7(SC); 2008(231)ELT27(SC)
S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.In C.A. No. 3269/20031. The short controversy which arises for determination in this Civil Appeal is: Whether the respondent-assessee was entitled to claim benefit of exemption Notification No. 3/2001-CE, dated 1.3.2001?2. The assessee claims exemption under S. No. 200 of the said Notification which claim was denied by the Department on the ground that trimmed or untrimmed circles of brass cannot fall under S. No. 200 but they fall under S. No. 201 where rate of duty is Rs. 3500 PMT. It may be stated that if the product in question falls under S. No. 200, then the rate of duty is nil. This is the narrow controversy in the present case.3. To resolve this dispute, we quote hereinbelow relevant extract of Notification No.3/2001-CE, dated 1.3.2001.S. No. Chapter Description of goods Rate Rate Condition No.or under under theheading the First SecondNo. or Schedule S chedulesub-headingNo.200 74.09 All goods other than Nil - 32trimmed or If such goods ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. These civil appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 8-5-2002.2. The principal question which arises for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the Additional Director (Investigation) has the requisite jurisdiction to authorize any officer to effect search and seizure in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time ?3. In these civil appeals we are concerned with the assessment year 1997-98. In the impugned judgment it has been held, inter alia that the Additional Director (Investigation) did not have the power to issue any authorization or warrant to Joint Director as he did not have any statutory authority to issue such authorization or warrant.4. Consequently, the High Court declared the notification dated 6-9-1989, as void to the extent indicated in the judgment. It is this decision of the High Court, basically which is under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)1CALLT14(SC); 2008(231)ELT210(SC); 2008(13)SCALE84; [2008]88SCL1(SC); 2009(1)SLJ315(SC):2009AIRSCW206
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Ms. Pareena Swarup, member of the Bar, has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking to declare various sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 such as Section 6 which deals with adjudicating authorities, composition, powers etc., Section 25 which deals with the establishment of Appellate Tribunal, Section 27 which deals with composition etc. of the Appellate Tribunal, Section 28 which deals with qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of the Appellate Tribunal, Section 32 which deals with resignation and removal, Section 40 which deals with members etc. as ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50, 323B of the Constitution of India. It is also pleaded that these provisions are in breach of scheme of the Constitutional provisions and power of judiciary.2. Brief facts in a nutshell are: The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)775; (2009)ILLJ551SC; 2008(13)SCALE100; 2009(3)SLJ383(SC); 2008AIRSCW6378; 2008(4)Crimes156
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, dismissing the applications filed questioning issuance of process and also prosecution by which they are sought to be prosecuted for alleged contravention of provisions of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the `Act'). The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2002 is Principal of the College of Agricultural Banking, Pune (in short `the College'), which is run by the Reserve Bank of India (in short `RBI'), the appellant in criminal appeal No. 61/2002. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) issued show-cause notice alleging that there was violation of the provisions of the Act thereby attracting prosecution. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2002 took the stand before the High Court that the Act does not apply to the RBI and/or the college because neither can be treated to be an establishment under the act. The High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR836; (2009)2MLJ539(SC); 2008(13)SCALE160:2008AIRSCW7379:AIR2009SC344:2009(2)KCCR878.
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following facts.2. The appellant, Krishna Gopal Kakani, the proprietor of M/s. Oriental Traders, a concern involved in the manufacture and import of goods, obtained a letter of authority from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay for the import of raw material for the benefit of a licensee who had been given an import licence. The appellant accordingly placed orders with a foreign supplier for the import of specified goods and for that purpose approached the respondent-Bank for opening Letters of Credit for two consignments. The bank thereupon opened two Letters of Credit, one on 24th August 1973, and the other on 21st September 1973 on which he also deposited 10% of the margin money of Rs. 4560/- and Rs. 4810/-. The other formalities having been completed, the Letters of Credit were duly negotiated on 21st January 1974 and 19th March 1974. The consignment arrived in India on 13th March, 1974 but despite the requests m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(13)SCALE116; 2008AIRSCW6947
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State. Before the High Court it was contended that the decision of the full Bench of the High Court in Accountant General v. Kunjamma : 2003(3)KLT345 relied on by learned Single Judge was in appeal before this Court and an order of stay of the said Court had been passed. But, the High Court was of the view that in view of the decision of the Full Bench the writ appeal was without merit.3. It is submitted that the High Court's judgment is dated 19.7.2005, while the identical issue came up for consideration in State of Kerala v. P.V. Neelakandan : AIR2005SC3066 , which was decided on 11.7.2005.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the view expressed in C.A. No. 2907 of 2005 decided on 22.2.2007 has also relevance.5. We are of the view that the case at hand needs to be decided in line with what has been stated in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC785; JT2008(12)SC684; 2009(1)KLT378(SC); RLW2009(2)SC1326; 2008(15)SCALE82; 2008AIRSCW8056
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel. This appeal relates to a telephone subscriber's grievance in regard to excess billing.2. Appellant received a bill dated 11.7.1995 for Rs. 91,621/- in regard to his telephone (No.239473 of Pattazhi, Kollam). On 28.7.1995 the appellant lodged a complaint with the first respondent alleging excess metering and/or misuse in regard to his telephone. He stated that no action had been taken in spite of his meeting the concerned Junior Engineer and complaining about the bill. He requested that the demand for the payment of the Bill may be kept `pending' till enquiry into his complaint. (According to the appellant, he had earlier received another excess bill (dated 11.1.1995) for Rs. 79170/- and he had orally complained about it, but paid the amount in view of an assurance of the telecom department to enquire into his complaint). The first respondent sent a reply dated 8.8.1995 informing him that the matter was bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC72; RLW2009(1)SC544; 2008(13)SCALE117; 2008AIRSCW6948
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Principal, Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The appellant faced trial along with one Velliah for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 307 and 307 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC'). Though the trial Court found that the prosecution has not established the case, in appeal filed by the State it was held by the High Court that the prosecution established the accusations against the appellants. But the acquittal so far as the Velliah A3 is concerned, the High Court confirmed the acquittal.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Sankaralingam (PW1), Ramaiah (PW2) and Paramasivam (PW6) are brothers. They reside at Marugal Kurichi village. Accused 1 to 3 are also residing in the same village. Their house is situated very near to the house of PWs. 1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1052; 2008BusLR986(SC); (2008)4CompLJ347(SC); 2008(13)SCALE1; (2008)10SCC227; [2008]88SCL10(SC):2009AIRSCW197
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and final order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry No. 172 of 1995 and Compensation Application No. 258 of 1994.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The appellant is a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, USA which is engaged in the business, inter alia, of manufacturing and selling of various medical diagnostic equipment, including whole body CT Scanner. Respondent No. 1 wanted to purchase a whole body Whole Body CT Scanner and held negotiations for the same with the appellant and respondent No. 3, M/s. UB Picker Ltd. It is alleged that on 10.4.1989, the appellant sent its proforma invoice No. PMS/S/CT/001/89 (hereinafter referred to as the `First Offer') for the supply of a new CT Scanner (Picker Synerview 1200 SX Whole Body Compu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC84; 2008(4)KLT306(SC); 2008(13)SCALE76; 2008AIRSCW6964
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter for short 'the Constitution') raises some important questions.2. Essentially challenge is to certain directions given by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court relating to production/custody of a child Manji Yamada. Emiko Yamada, claiming to be grandmother of the child, has filed this petition. The Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court was filed by M/s. SATYA, stated to be an NG0, the opposite party No. 3 in this petition. The D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 7829 of 2008 was filed by M/s. SATYA wherein the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, The Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan and the Superintendent of Police Jaipur City (East), Jaipur were made the parties. There is no dispute about Baby Manji Yamada having been given birth by a surrogate mother. It is stated that the biological paren...
Tag this Judgment!