LawforAll

▼
Friday, July 31, 2015

Notwithstanding the constitutional right of a citizen to carry on business but such right is subject to certain restrictions. I cannot be disputed that there are certain areas which may be required to keep free of such types of kiosks for security reasons. The Court cannot direct the administration to allow such a kiosk even if there is a threat to safety and security. On the one hand, appellant has a right to earn his livelihood, but on the other hand there is serious issue of safety and security of the premises near the Supreme Court compound. Hence, the Court has to balance between the two. The purpose involving general interest of community as opposed to the interest of individual directly or indirectly has to be balanced. Merely because of the contention of the appellant and the respondents that after the bomb blasts took place in Delhi High Court compound in 2011, no such incident happened till date, it cannot be presumed that such incident will not happen in a near future. The Court cannot assume and presume that there is no threat to the safety and security of the Supreme Court and its vicinity and allow the appellant to continue the said business.

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      ...

FALSELY CLAIMED as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ a scheduled tribe community.= In the instant case, the appellant claimed to be a member of scheduled tribe on the basis of false statements and false affidavits submitted by him. At the same time indisputably in the year 1991, the appellant got employment on the basis of his claim to be a member of scheduled tribe. After 18 years of his employment, the matter was referred to a Scrutiny Committee for verification. On consideration of all the documents, the enquiry conducted by vigilance cell, a validity certificate was issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 19.06.2010. However the matter was reconsidered by the Scrutiny Committee for the reason that the tribe certificate issued in favour of his brother was invalidated by the Committee in 2004 and the order attained finality up to this Court. The Scrutiny Committee after giving opportunity recalled its earlier order dated 19.6.2010, whereby validity certificate was issued in favour of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court needs no interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, we hold that because of inordinate delay in considering the certificate of the appellant, the benefit of the certificate already availed by the appellant shall not be disturbed making it clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to take any further benefit of reservation in future including the benefit of continuing in service.

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      ...

The respondent herein impugned the validity of Notifications Nos.102/87-CE and 103/87-CE, both dated 27.03.1987, whereby whole of the duty of excise was exempted in respect of iron and steel scrap obtained by breaking the ship subject to the condition that customs duty should have been levied at the rate of Rs.1400/- per Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT). With the stipulation of such a condition, giving the exemption of payment of excise duty only to those who had paid customs duty at Rs.1400/- per LDT, another class of persons who also paid custom duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, albeit at a lesser rate, was excluded. The respondent who belonged to excluded category, had challenged the said Notification as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.=This court in Ayurveda Pharmacy [(1989) 2 SCC 285], held that two items of the same category cannot be discriminated and where such a distinction is made between items falling in the same category it should be done on a reasonable basis, in order to save such a classification being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” It was contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that purpose was to give exemption only to those who paid custom duty at Rs.1,400/- per LDT and since the duty paid by the respondent herein was lesser in amount, respondent could not ask for exemption. That may be so. In such a case, the only option to bring parity was to demand duty on differential amount, which was even contended by the respondent herein. That provision should have been incorporated to save the impugned Notification from the vice of arbitrariness. In fact, that would bring both the sub-categories completely at par. Thus, while upholding the view taken by the High Court, we modify the same only to the extent that the respondent herein shall also be entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification subject to the condition that the duty already paid by the respondent herein on LDT, would be taken into account and only the balance out of it would be subject to excise duty.

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...

whether the activity of mounting of Water Purification and Filteration System (WPFS) on a base frame carried out by M/s Poonam Spark (P) Ltd. amounts to manufacture or not.=According to the Department of Revenue, the aforesaid work being carried out by the appellant, namely, assemble of the components resulted into a new product known as WPFS having different name and character and it amounted to “manufacture” as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, appellant was liable to pay excise duty. Show cause notice dated 13.05.1998 was served upon the appellant. The appellant submitted its reply taking the defence that it was only carrying out the job work of WPFS on the base frame and, therefore, it did not amount to manufacture of any new product. =The Tribunal has recorded the finding that PDL supplied the following materials to the appellant: (i) Filter Housing Cartridges (ii) U.V. Units (iii) Timer (iv) Mounting Plate & Screws (v) Tubings and Fittings The appellants then make the following types of Water Purification & Filteration System (WPFS): (i) WPFS with Dual Cartridges, (ii) WPFS with Single Cartridge, (iii) WPFS with Single Cartridge & Electronic Control Unit. It is also pointed out that Filter Housing and Cartridges are imported by PDL through M/s Cuno Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore and UV based Filteration and Purification unit from Rathi Brothers/ IWT Poona. The choice of cartridge depends upon the basis of filteration, the operating conditions and the customer's ability to afford the particular type of cartridge, etc. The appellants undertake the job of assembling all the items received from M/s. Perfect Drug Ltd. on a base plate and thus brings into existence a new and commercially different commodity known as Water Purification & Filteration System.It is on this basis, a finding of fact is arrived at by all the three Authorities that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to “manufacture” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the end result of the process or activity resulted in new and different commercial product. We, thus, are of the opinion that on the basis of the aforesaid findings which are concurrent findings of all the Courts below, the correct legal principle has been applied.

›
                                                              NON-REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      ...