|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 473 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 662 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d held the same to be distinguishable. I am of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court mentioned above. Therefore, the affidavits Exhibits P-G.P-H and P-1 were not admissible in evidence. Excluding these affidavits, it cannot be said that the sample which was sent for analysis was the same which was tested by the Chemical Examiner and for which report Exhibit P-F has been sent. 11. I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court have wrongly relied upon the affidavits for coming to the conclusion of the petitioner's being guilty. There being no link evidence, the petitioner was clearly entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction of the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, present revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 661 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. See Mohanlal Hargovind Dass v. Ram Narain and Ors. 1979 (3) SCC 279, State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju 978CriLJ1092 ,State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar 1981CriLJ884 and Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In the instant case also we find that the trial court had taken a view which the High Court has not held to be either perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not based on evidence, still on re-appreciation of the evidence, the High Court came to a different conclusion which on facts of this case and on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the above cited case cannot be sustained. 10. For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed. The judgment and conviction recorded by the High Court as against this appellant is set aside. The appeals are allowed. If the appellant is in custody, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
-
2002 (12) TMI 660 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... emie P. Ltd. 2001 (132) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.) wherein this Court has held that the aforesaid goods are excisable under Heading 23.02. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. C.A. Nos. 7491-7512/1999, 4361/1999, 996/2000, 3787-3791/2000, 7240-7250/2000, 50/2001 and 1400/2001 In view of the order passed in C.A. No. 2284/1995 above, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed that of the Revenue are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 659 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... getting job work done from M/s Sheetal Synthetics P. Ltd. as per commercial contracts and paying fair market value of goods, the assessee had advanced interest free funds as the assessee was paying job work charges to that company. As against this, the ld. D/R of revenue has relied on the orders of authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival contentions, the material on record as also the cited decisions. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular the fact that the assessee having not charged interest from M/s Sheetal Synthetics on commercial expediency, there was no real income of this amount of notional interest and that the assessee had its own enough interest free funds to cover those interest free advances, and also following the above mentioned judicial decisions, we find this disallowance to be not warranted and justified. We, therefore, delete the same. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed in part as indicated above.
-
2002 (12) TMI 658 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ient cause for condonation of delay, no such application was filed alongwith the application for restoration and such application was filed merely seven months after filing of the application for restoration, and that too without disclosing any fact justifying the delay and merely reiterating the contents of the application for restoration. Undoubtedly, one additional sentence does appear in the said application to the effect that "however inadvertently the same remained to be filed as it is not came to the notice of the petitioners". Again it is pertinent to note that one of the petitioners being the petitioner No. 3 is holder of LL.B. degree. There is no satisfactory explanation for delay in filing the applications. 26. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore, the petitioners having failed to disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the applications deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d has indicated any reasons for the same. On examining the impugned notice of show-cause that was issued, we find that the Collector has not indicated as to why from 1992 till 1996, no action could be taken though the narration of facts had been made. In the absence of any explanation by the Collector in the impugned notice, the exercise of jurisdiction after expiry of about four-and-a-half years must be held not to have been exercised within a reasonable period within the ambit of Section 211 read with Rule 108(6) of the relevant Rules. Consequently, we see no infirmity with the impugned decision requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is accordingly dismissed. SLPs (C) Nos. 1561, 1563 of 2002 8. Delay condoned. 9. In view of our aforesaid order in SLP (C) No. 1562 of 2002, these petitions stand disposed of. IA No. 24 in CA No. 5556 of 2001, Contempt Petition (C) No. 297 of 2001 and IA No. 1 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 508 of 2002 10. Adjourned.
-
2002 (12) TMI 656 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ocess and thereafter sulphur is procured from these gases. The ratio of the decision in the case of Gas Authority of India Ltd. is squarely applicable. In the said matter the appellants purchased natural gas consisting of predominantly hydrocarbon gases including Propane and Butane. The Gas Authority was separating from natural gas Propane and Butane which put together became liquefied gases. The left over gas is turned as lean gas. The Gas Authority was using Molecular sieve for separating different gases in respect of which they were taking Modvat Credit. the Appellant Tribunal relying upon the decision in the case of R.P. Drugs Ltd. v. CCE, 2001 (45) RLT 213, has held that dutiability of bye product is not the issue but the issue is whether the product is a bye product and once the answer is found in the affirmative the benefit of Rule 57D is available and the demand in terms of Rule 57CC is to be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (12) TMI 655 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d and treated at the hospital of his choice and he should inform the Trial Court about the place of treatment before he is released on bail. The Adugodi Police, shall keep police surveillance on the petitioner at the place where he is taking treatment. The petitioner is directed not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. After limited period of 3 months, the accused shall surrender before the Trial Court. Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Counsel submits that necessary applications would be made before the Trial Court to proceed with the trial even in the absence of the petitioner without disputing the say of witnesses regarding the personal identity of the petitioner during the course of trial. The Trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the case within three months from the date of this order, on day-to-day basis. Request for hand delivery of the operative portion of the order is granted. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Adugodi Police for compliance.
-
2002 (12) TMI 654 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be fastened is effected by the defaulter after the date when the arrears fell due, Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act stands attracted and therefore, the sale will not bind the Government, being executed by the defaulter with intention to delay or defeat the recovery of the arrears and prior notice of demand on the defaulter under Sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act is unnecessary to make the sale in favour of a near relation or for grossly inadequate consideration invalid, the observations made by the learned single Judges in the decisions reported in 1977 KLT 657 (Raman Kannan v. State of Kerala) and 1980 KLN 11 (John and Anr. v. Tahsildar, Manjeri and Anr.) that in such cases it is for the Government to establish the fraudulent nature by independent proceedings in a civil court, does not reflect the correct law on the point. The reference is answered accordingly. The appeal may be disposed of by the single Judge on merits in accordance with law.
-
2002 (12) TMI 653 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ore so if that plain language supports the subject against the taxing Department. The word 'misfire' should be read as 'missed fire' as this is the word used in English case inland Revenue Commissioner v. Ayrshire Employers Mutual Insurance Association, 1948 (16) ITR EC 80 11. In the instant case, the assessee has succeeded before the East Regional Bench. The show cause notice drafted in this case trying to put the case of the department beyond the actual words used in Clause (c) of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules. We are therefore of the view that the case of the department put forth by the Departmental Representative has to be rejected and the assessee's case is accepted. 12. The appeal stands allowed with consequential relief, if any, according to law. 14. In view of above judgments which covers the facts of the case, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. Thus both the appeals are allowed in terms of Tribunal's judgments (supra)
-
2002 (12) TMI 652 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be that great value has to be attached to precedent which has taken the shape of rule being followed by it for the purpose of consistency and exactness in decisions of Court, unless the Court can clearly distinguish the decision put up as a precedent or is per incuriam, having been rendered without noticing some earlier precedents with which the Court agrees. Full Bench decision in Balbir Singh's case (supra) which holds that if there is conflict of views between the two co-equal Benches of the Apex Court, the High Court has to follow the judgment which appears to it to state the law more elaborately and more accurately and in conformity with the scheme of the Act, in our considered opinion, for reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, does not lay down the correct law as to application of precedent and is, therefore, over-ruled on this point. After having answered the reference, writ petitions be placed before the Single Judge for decision on merits.
-
2002 (12) TMI 651 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fall." When considered in the background of statutory provisions, noted above, the payment of non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is really inconsequential. The deceased employee was clearly an 'insured person', as defined in the Act. As the deceased employee has suffered an employment injury as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and there is no dispute that he was in employment of the employer, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, proceedings under the Compensation Act were excluded statutorily. The High Court was not justified in holding otherwise. We find that the Corporation has filed an affidavit indicating that the benefits under the Act shall be extended to the persons entitled under the Act. The benefits shall be worked out by the Corporation and shall be extended to the eligible persons. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 650 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inhibiting the exercise of statutory power by the investigating agency. 19. In these circumstances, therefore, we set aside the direction contained in the order of the High Court dated 10th January, 2002 directing the arrest of the appellants. We also set aside the direction made by the High Court directing the investigating agency to submit a charge-sheet. However, the investigating agency must promptly take all necessary steps, conclude the investigation and submit its report to the concerned Magistrate. It is open to the investigating agency to submit such report as it considers appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and result of the investigation. After such a final report is submitted by the investigating agency, the concerned Magistrate will proceed to deal with the matter further in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned orders. 20. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
-
2002 (12) TMI 649 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... prosecutor in functioning effectively and such a matter certainly results in serious miscarriage in administration of justice and no Advocate would be safe if such proceedings are initiated on the basis of the allegations of the nature made in the complaint. Either the learned Designated Judge has not applied his mind or he has not understood the scope of the application and if he had done either, he would have dismissed the application. That we do now. 16. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the learned Designated Judge and dismiss the application filed by the respondent under Section 340 CrPC. At the same time, we make it clear that the respondent shall not engage in this kind of litigation hereafter and he is restrained from making any applications of this nature and if any such application is made before any court, the same shall be dismissed in limine and appropriate proceedings be initiated against him. 17. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2002 (12) TMI 648 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cle 226 can only be exercised under the exceptional circumstances and in case there is a gross violation in issuance of notice under section 148 only. In the instant case I do not find any gross violation committed by the respondents while issuing the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. 37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not want to interfere in the notices issued by the respondents. However, petitioners are at liberty to raise all legal as well as factual objections before the competent authority and before the Income-tax Officer and Income-tax Officer is expected to decide the objections filed by the petitioners legally and factually and then pass the final order in accordance with the provisions of the law regarding reassessment proceedings after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within the period of two months from the date of this order. 38. With these observations, these 10 writ petitions are being disposed of. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed upon by the learned Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court held that as the assessing Authority did not invoke its jurisdiction for levying the penalty, the revisionary Authority has no jurisdiction to invoke the revisionary power and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to redecide the matter. In the present matter, as the notice was not issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act and it was issued only under Section 77 for imposing penalty on account of failure to file returns, the Commissioner cannot under the Revisionary powers pass an Order for making payment of Service Tax with interest. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed to this extent.” 5. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of Markfed Oil and Allied case, we allow the Appeal. We must however, mention that the Department will be at liberty to demand Service Tax, if any, payable after the assessment of ST 3 return filed by the Appellant in accordance with the law.
-
2002 (12) TMI 646 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) is not entitled to claim exemption of purchase tax component from the tax payable at compounded rate. In fact those who are paying tax at compounded rate after the first year will be paying compounded tax for the succeeding years based on the earlier year's payment of tax at compounded rate. Therefore Section 5A component of compounded tax of the preceding year cannot even be identified. Therefore the claim of exemption made by the petitioners is totally misconceived. However, so far as the petitioner in O.P. No. 37040 of 2002 is concerned, since the petitioner's application for compounding fee was rejected, petitioner cannot be compelled to pay tax under Section 7(1)(a) but the department has to make regular assessment and demand tax. The petitioners prayer for direction to accept compounding fee at 120 per cent of the previous year's tax for the year 2002-03 is not tenable and is rejected. Therefore O.P.s are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 645 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m to have realized the need for substitution on becoming aware of the anomalies and absurdities to which the provision without such substitution may lead to, even resulting, at times, in repugnancy with the main provision and virtually defeating the intention of the legislature. The modification of the provision, as carried out by the substitution ordered, when found to be needed and necessitated to implement effectively the legislative intention and to prevent a social mischief against which the provision is directed, a purposive construction is a must and the only inevitable solution. The right to contest to an office of member of a municipal body is the creature of statute and not a constitutional or fundamental right. Viewed, thus also, we are convinced that the interpretation placed by the High Court on the provisions concerned is neither arbitrary, or unreasonable or unjust to call for our interference. The appeal consequently fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 644 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d the material placed before us. AO has recorded a finding that as per the Tax Audit Report, there was a capital expenditure of ₹ 66,640/- debited to the Profit & Loss Account. In view of the above, he disallowed the sum of ₹ 66,640/-. Before the CIT(A) it was pointed out that the expenditure was incurred for purchase of 13 canteen trolleys. The CIT(A), after considering the submission of the assessee's counsel, directed to treat the same as revenue expenditure. 89. We have heard both the parties and considered their arguments. Admittedly the expenditure was incurred on purchase of 13 new canteen trolleys. The cost of each trolley was above ₹ 5,000/-. Considering this fact, in our opinion, the expenditure was capital expenditure and the same cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this point and allow Ground No. 15 of the revenue's appeal. 90. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 643 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... some instructive value inasmuch as it has a bearing upon the strength and burden of judiciary, ethics of advocacy and the alacrity of the legislature in making clarificatory amendments which can go a long way in eliminating unnecessary and arduous litigations. We also note the sincere efforts made by the learned Counsel in minimising the area of difference for an overall out-of-Court and out-of-arbitration settlement which, at one stage, appeared feasible and within reach but which course could not be fully pursued in the Court for want of time. The appeal is dismissed with the above observations with no order as to costs. The Civil Applications filed in this appeal are also accordingly rejected and the interim relief stands vacated. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant requested to extend the interim relief which was operating till now. In view of rejection of the appeal, we are not inclined to accept the request and accordingly that prayer is also rejected.
........
|
