Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 4(4)(c) – Valuation of excisable goods – Related person – There is no finding that the price of the goods was lower than what was the price of those goods, in the market – In view of the foregoing discussion, it has to be concluded that the revenue’s decision in rejecting the value at which the goods were sold, by treating the assessee as a related person, was erroneous.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – Section 7 read with 19(1) – Forfeiture of Property – The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 has been enacted by the Parliament with an object to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto – Order of forfeiture is upheld.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 AND ANOTHER — Respondent…
(IPC) – Sections 364A, 302 and 201 – Kidnapping and murder of 7 years old child – Death sentence – Review of judgment – “rarest of rare” doctrine requires that the death sentence not be imposed only by taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli and…
Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) – The abolition of the OAT is not violative of the fundamental right of access to justice because the Orissa High Court will hear cases which were pending before the OAT prior to its abolition
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and…
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 – Section 13(1)(e) and 15(1) – Unless the contract itself permits subletting, it shall not be lawful, after coming into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to sublet the premises let out to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein with an exception the State Government may permit so by gazette notification.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…
(IPC) – Section 304(ii) – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Quantum of sentence – Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused is reduced to the extent of 05 years in place of 07 years
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANNEER SELVAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
(IPC) – Sections 366, 342 and 506 – Kidnapping for purpose of marriage – Acquittal – Conviction solely on the basis of the statement of victim not sufficient to prove the guilty – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.H. BALAKRISHNA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 4(A) – Mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible to find refuge under Section 4(A) of the Act, and what is required along with such affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, KANPUR — Appellant Vs. M/S. A.R. POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari…
Remarks passed in court – it is essential for the courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right forum, and only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. MAHESH PS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – there is no per se restriction on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court – Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr., (2015) 6 SCC 773does not lay down the correct law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PARASHOTAM DASS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and B.V. Nagarathna,…





