The appellant herein was working as sub-ordinate Judge in Garhwa, Jharkhand when an order was issued by the Governor of Jharkhand removing him from service by an order issued on 31.07.2003 on the basis of a resolution of the Full Court of the High Court of Jharkhand recommending his removal from service. The Inspecting Judge inspected the records of the Civil Court and submitted a confidential report to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court that the appellant did not use to prepare judgments on his own, rather he used to get it prepared through some body else before delivering the judgments.
SC Bench warned the Union government and its departments that bureaucratic delays could not be cited as an excuse or a ground for filing appeals beyond the period of limitation of 90 days and also said that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the government. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
It was held by Honorable SC that merely because assessee, may be, by mistake, paid duty on goods which were exempted from such payment, did not mean that goods would become goods liable for duty under Act and it was Further held that merely because assessee had not claimed any refund on duty paid by him would not come in way of claiming benefit of Notification.
In Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (Supra), the issue before this Court was whether the products manufactured by the assessee would fall under Sub-Heading 3003.30 as medicament or under Chapter 33 as cosmetics. The assessee contended that each of the products was having ayurvedic medicinal herbs in it and even the labels on these products claim specifically the medicinal properties of the product. The assessee further urged that even if the user of product leads to improvement in appearance of a person that by itself cannot bring it into the category of “cosmetics” if otherwise the product is having a medicinal value and is marketed as such.
Explore the Supreme Court’s ruling in Customs Appeal 1150/2004 between Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, and Denso Kirloskar Industries. Details on CESTAT judgment.
SC held that So far as the special discount is concerned, all that the authorities have to look into whether as a matter of fact, the petitioner received only the sum originally charged less the discount. It is the look out of the traders to see that the trade increase and it is for that purpose the trade discount is given. Hence, a person may not be able to clearly prove as to why the special discount was given. But if there has been a consistent practice of giving special discount, that has to be accepted by the assessing authority. The Assessing Authority shall not reject the appellants’ claim for exemption of the amounts of trade discount solely on the ground that the discount amounts were not shown in the sale invoices.
CCE Vs. M/s. Plaxair India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)- In the present case, it is the stand of the assessee that the assessee had paid the duty under the provisions of the Act before the issue of the Show Cause Notice and, therefore, not liable for the payment of penalty and interest on the duty so paid under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Geeta S. Johari (Supreme Court)- The SC ruled, that if a disputing party asks its rival to appoint an arbitrator according to their agreement and if it is not complied with, the former can approach a court for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. After that, the arbitrator appointed by the court will proceed with the arbitration.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent appearing in-person, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the High Court does not require any interference, particularly when the issue raised in this Appeal has already been decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1932 of 1982, wherein it was categorically held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public servant
We have today delivered judgment in Civil Appeal arising out SLP (C) No.26558 of 2010 (M/s Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai) and other connected appeals setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of the Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals. We have also delivered a separate judgment in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32450 of 2010 (M/s ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai) and other connected appeal affirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra). These two appeals are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid two judgments. There shall be no order as to costs.
