2021-TIOL-1275-HC-DEL-NDPS
Gulbabu Vs State NCT Of Delhi
NDPS - Petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 197/2020 under Sections 21/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Held:
+ Only non-compliance alleged by the petitioner is of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act - Search of the co-accused Parveen was taken by a lady Constable and the same was to maintain the dignity, however the search was taken in the presence of the ACP concerned and it cannot be said that on that count the search is vitiated - Further, the search has not taken place inside any building, conveyance or place but at the public place and hence, it cannot be said that Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act have been violated - In case the search conducted by the Lady Constable would have been in the absence of senior officers, who were duly authorized to conduct the search, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner would have been applicable - The search in the present case was conducted at the instance of the authorized officer, but by the Lady Constable qua accused Parveen as she was a woman in accordance with law. [para 8]
+ Once the accused were apprehended, kept in custody throughout the night, FIR registered in the morning at Police Station Crime Branch at Pushp Vihar, one fails to understand why the formal arrest was made at 11:45 a.m. as is evident from the Arrest Memo. [para 10]
+ What is disturbing in this case is that the residence of the petitioner is at Suiwalan, Turkman Gate, Delhi which is in the vicinity of the office of the Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch at Old PS Kotwali, Darya Ganj, however, how and when information was sent to the family is not clear in the case diary, and how the family of the petitioner reached the Court is also not clear. [para 11]
+ As per the status report, petitioner has no previous involvement much less in an offence under the NDPS Act. Considering the facts noted above particularly the belated arrest of the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. [para 11]
+ Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/duty Magistrate, further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave NCT of Delhi without the prior permission of the court concerned. [para 12]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1274-HC-KAR-ST
Novel Security Services Bindu Complex Vs Additional Director
ST - Writ petition challenges the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2021 as being void, illegal, time barred, beyond authority and hence unconstitutional; that prior to issuance of show-cause notice, the petitioner is entitled for consultation in terms of the Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX , dated 10.03.2017 - Counsel for Revenue submitted that the petitioner would be afforded an opportunity of hearing pursuant to the show-cause notice and till conclusion of adjudication, they would not resort to any coercive steps as may be permissible in law to be exercised.
Held: Taking note of the requirement that the proceedings being at the preliminary stage be concluded at the earliest and also the submission of the counsel for revenue that they would not take any coercive steps till adjudication is completed, it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter in the following manner in order to avoid any procrastination of the proceedings which are at nascent stage - Show-cause notice dated 22.04.2021 is to be kept in abeyance - The petitioner in the interregnum would be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 - The hearing is to be afforded by the Show-cause notice issuing authority and in the event after hearing, if the authority comes to the conclusion that the show-cause notice needs to be revived, notice to be issued to revive the said show-cause notice as if it were the show-cause notice issued on 22.04.2021 - It is made clear that all contentions of both sides are kept open as no adjudication is made relating to the contentions raised - The petitioner to appear before the Show-cause Notice Issuing Authority on 24.06.2021 - petitioner should cooperate with the authorities for expeditious disposal of the proceedings - petition is disposed of: High Court [para 4]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1273-HC-KAR-CX
Simplex Infrastructures Ltd Vs JCCT
CX - Writ petition cannot be rejected merely because a statutory appeal has not been preferred by the petitioners within the prescribed period - Court must opine that the Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare case does not lay down the law that a writ petition, which is filed after the expiry of the statutory period for availing the statutory remedy and without availing such remedy, must be rejected as not maintainable: High Court [para 21]
CX - M/s Tata Housing Development Corporation awarded a contract to the first petitioner M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. to construct residential buildings in Bangalore christened Promont Hilltop Residential Project (the project site) - The first petitioner set up a Concrete Mix (CM) plant at the project site to discharge its contractual obligations - The petitioners transported the CM manufactured at the Project's adjacent building site, and such mix was used exclusively for construction at the site - The petitioners provided details, as sought, on 22.01.2016 while clarifying that it was manufacturing controlled CM at the project site for exclusive use at site and it was not manufacturing RMC - Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (the third respondent) issued show cause notice dated 13.04.2017 to the first petitioner alleging suppression of facts and misdeclaration and calling upon the first respondent to show cause against classifying the concrete mix produced at the project site as RMC denying the benefit of exemption permissible under notification in No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - The first petitioner was also called upon to show cause against the demand of duty in a sum of Rs. 89,03,343/- and further amounts as penalty under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 extending the period of limitation under the other provisions of such Act - The first respondent, despite cause shown by the petitioners, issued the Order-in-original confirming the proposal in the show cause notice dated 13.04.2017 proposing confiscation of certain goods - Petitioners were dismayed when they received the impugned letter dated 03.09.2020 directing the petitioners to pay the excise duty and the penalty with interest - On enquiry with the Tax Consultants, the petitioners learnt that the Tax Consultant by inadvertence and a bona fide error had not filed the necessary first appeal - The petitioners could not file such appeal even within the extended period because the time in that regard had also lapsed by then, therefore, the petition.
Held: Whether a concrete mix manufactured at the site can be classified as RMC will have to be decided based on (1) the plant and machinery set-up for its manufacture, (2) the manufacturing processes involved, (3) the properties of the concrete mix and (4) the manner of delivery - It is undisputed that the petitioners have set-up a batching plant comprising of separate silos and concrete mixer with necessary pumps, piping system and control panel to manufacture concrete mix of required grades and quality as per the contractual terms and the concrete mix manufactured by them was no different from the concrete mix purchased by the petitioner in case of breakdown or maintenance - The petitioners, only because they had not installed either stone crushers with vibrators or sand mill or because they purchased stone aggregates, sand and other raw material from third-party vendors, cannot be permitted to contend that the machinery installed by them and the manufacturing process adopted by them are different and distinct from the machinery installed and process followed for manufacturing RMC - If the petitioners have manufactured RMC, it would be of no significance, given the text of the exemption under the relevant notification and the clarification dated 06.01.1998, that it is used for captive use and not for sale - Writ petition is rejected concluding that the first respondent has rightly classified the concrete mix manufactured by the petitioners at the project site as RMC and the Order-in-original does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction: High Court [para 24]
- Petition rejected: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT |
