Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(133)ECC92; 2008(159)LC92(SC); 2008(231)ELT25(SC)
ORDER1. Repeatedly this Court has observed that in cases in which excisability is in issue, the Department should insist on the examination of the process undertaken by the assessee in the manufacture of a given product. Despite our saying so, repeatedly, the Department is not insisting on examining the process. This is one more such case.2. In the present case, the investigation revealed that the respondent-assessee, M/s. Shanmugananda Soapnut Works, was engaged in the manufacture of Shikakai powder by crushing shigekai pods and 'Reeta' mixed in preparation of 10:1. Despite the said revelation made in the course of investigation, the show cause notice has not even alleged that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Shikakai powder by crushing shigekai pods and 'Reeta' being mixed and, consequently, the entire adjudication stands derailed. Further, it may be stated that mixing of 'Reeta' has been held to constitute manufacture in numerous judgments. But, in this case, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(134)ECC290; 2008(160)LC290(SC)
ORDERAshok Bhan and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Judgment and Order, dated, 10th October, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (in short 'Tribunal') New Delhi in Final Order No. 142/01-C, in Appeal No. E/369/96-C whereby the Respondent was held eligible to avail of the benefit of the small scale exemption notification. Brief facts of the case are as under:The Respondent M/s Surcoat Paints Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent was incorporated as a private limited company on 13th October, 1986 under the Companies Act. Respondent is a registered small scale industry holding permanent registration certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries, Centre of Director of Industries, U.P. Respondent has been availing exemption of S.S.I. as envisaged under Notification No. 175/86...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC521; 2008(12)SCALE545; (2008)17SCC188:2008AIRSCW7640
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5048 and 5088 of 2001, filed by the present respondent No. 1 in each case. In the civil revision petition it was indicated that the proforma respondents in these appeals were not necessary parties. The basic dispute relates to liability to interest on the amount envisaged under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the `Act') conveniently called 'solatium'. The High Court allowed the civil revision petitions being of the view that the decision of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. : (1996)2SCC71 was overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India : AIR2001SC3516 .3. Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, submitted that both Prem Nath's case (supra) and Sunder's case (supra) were c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)222CTR6(SC):(2009)19DTR(SC)102:(2009)309ITR231(SC)
ORDERCivil Appeal No. 448 of 20031. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petn. No. 1745 of 1999 passed on 21-12-2001 (Dr. Prannoy Roy and Anr. v. CIT and Anr. : (2002) 254 ITR 755 (Del)--Ed.).2. The respondent-assessees earned substantial capital gains for the assessment year 1995-96 for which income-tax return was due to be filed on 31-10-1995. The return was filed on 29-9-1996, i.e., after a delay of about 11 months. However, taxes due were paid on 25-9-1995, i.e., before the due date of filing of the return. Though the returned income was accepted on 29-1-1998, yet interest was charged under the provisions of Section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on the ground that tax paid on 25-9-1995 could not be reduced from the tax due on assessment.3. Being aggrieved, the assessees filed revision petition under Section 264 of the Act on 9-11-1998 before the Administrative Commissioner requesting to delete interest char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)LHSC3942; AIR2009SC210; 2008(56)BLJR3053; 2008(12)SCALE598; 2008(2)LC1277(SC); 2008AIRSCW7148
Altamas Kabir, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2005 passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1988, which was heard along with Criminal Revision Application No. 316 of 1988, reversing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1987, under Sections 302 and 307/34 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment.2. Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1988 was filed by the State of Maharashtra against the appellants herein and two others, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, acquitting all the four accused persons of the charges framed against them as indicated hereinabove.3. The Criminal Revision Application NO.316 of 1988 was filed by the original complainant against the same judgment of acquittal and both were taken up by the Bombay High Court together and disposed of by a common judgment. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2860; AIR2009SC208; 2008(4)AWC3820(SC); (2008)8MLJ206(SC); (2008)152PLR746; 2008(12)SCALE577:2008AIRSCW7145:2008(6)LHSC3818.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act'). Challenge in the appeal was to the award made by the Motor Claims Appellate Tribunal, Ratangarh (Churu) (in short `MACT) in Claim Case No. 89 of 2004. By the said award, a sum of Rs. 4,03,650/- was awarded to the claimant-respondent No. 1 in the appeal. The dispute related to the rejection of appellant's claim for exoneration on the ground of violation of policy condition. It was pointed out that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not in force on the date of accident.3. Factual position in detail need not be indicated because the issue relates to the liability of the insurance company as the driving license was not valid on the date of the accident.4. In the instant case the date of accident was 11....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)8MLJ636(SC); 2008(12)SCALE770; (2008)10SCC607
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This Civil Appeal (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14286/2006) is filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the High Court dated 17th January, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 9310/2005. This judgment has been followed in all conjoint matters, namely, Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14287, 14288, 14290, 14291/2006 and 3788/2007.3. By a Notification dated 21st February, 2005, the State Government framed a Liquor Policy for the year 2005-2006. Clause 13 of that Policy prescribed the procedure for depositing the licence fee by a retailer of liquor. Sub-clause (1) of Clause 13 of the Policy stipulated that the annual licence fee would be divided into 24 equal fortnightly instalments. It further stipulated that in lieu of the quantity of liquor purchased by the licence-holder, duty deposited at the prescribed rates shall be adjusted against his licence fee equivalent to the demand for the concerning fortnight (see Clause 13.1). Under Clause 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(9)SCALE405; (2009)1SCC497
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC for short) decided to construct a bridge across the river Sabarmati. In that behalf AMC sought financial contribution from Ahmedabad Electricity Company (AEC), Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC). As the cost was estimated to be Rs. 11 crores, it was agreed that AMC, AEC, ONGC and GSRTC will bear the cost in the ratio of Rs. 4 crores, Rs. 1 crore, Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 4 crores respectively. According to AMC, it was further agreed that in the event of the cost exceeding Rs. 11 crores, the excess to the extent of Rs. 1 crore would be borne by ONGC and AEC in the proportion of 2:1. AMC appointed AEC as its agent for construction of the bridge. The work was entrusted to the appellant for execution. The cost of construction turned out to be Rs. 11,38,06,000/-. It is stated that the additional cost of Rs. 38,06,000/- was borne by ONGC and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4090(SC); 2008(12)SCALE450; (2008)10SCC127
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 20th of March, 2007 in Writ Appeal No. 2342 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by which the application for condonation of delay of 116 days in filing the aforesaid writ appeal was rejected.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay of 116 days and the explanation given by the State of Kerala, the appellant herein, and also the objections filed thereto, we are of the view that the appellants, namely, the State of Kerala have made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ appeal is restored to its original file. The Division Bench of the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ appeal after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order in accordance with law preferably within six months from the date of com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC1009(SC); IV(2008)BC336(SC); 2008(5)MPHT1(SC); 2008(12)SCALE451
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 25th of October, 2006 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C)No. 22642 of 2006 by which the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy to the appellant.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order as well as the other materials on record. After examining the impugned order as well as the materials on record, we are of the view that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. Before the High Court, the appellant sought to contend that before passing the impugned order, the appellant was not at all issued with any notice. The High Court, however, without going into the question whether the notice was at all served on the appellant or not, dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the appellant has got a right of appeal against the impugned order under the provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!