Reader Comments

Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu - About Lawyer in Chandigarh SimranLaw

by Tressa Jaramillo (2018-10-31)


gEHhPYD.jpgIn the same hue, his further submission was that exemption notification 4/2006 exempted only 'ores' and did not exempt 'concentrate'. V, dated 14th July, 1923, page 260) The importance of Section 5A cannot be overemphasised. [1963] INSC 121; , AIR 1964 SC 1217. We can do no better than commend a careful perusal of Union of India vs. This right cannot be taken away by a side wind, as so powerfully and pellucidly stated in Nandeshwar Prasad vs.

Hindustan Gas and Industries Limited inoperative for the purposes of present case. 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the facts of the case and in view of the provisions of s. He vehemently argued that the aforesaid decisions proceeded on the basis that roasting of an ore to obtain concentrate does not amount to manufacture. It is conceived from natural justice and has matured into manhood in the maxim of audi alteram partem, i. every person likely to be adversely affected by a decision must be granted a meaningful opportunity of being heard.

(Gazette of India, Pt. So stringent is this right that it mandates that the person who heard and considered the Objections can alone decide them; and not even his successor is competent to do so even on the basis of the materials collected by his predecessor. iron ore on the one hand and concentrate on the other. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564, on these as well as cognate considerations. He argued that when the Tariff Entry 2613 mentioned ores and concentrates but the exemption notification exempted only 'ores' with conspicuous absence of concentrate, such an exemption notification was to be given strict interpretation and even if two views were possible, the view which favours the Revenue had to be preferred while interpreting exemption notification.

It is not disputed that the previous sanction was Simranjeet Law Associates sought by the EOW for prosecution of the respondents. This basis was knocked off with Simranjeet Law Associates the insertion of Chapter Note 4, thereby, introducing a fictional element, namely, treating the process of converting ores into concentrate as 'manufacture'. They could not be tried together in a single trial by the Special Tribunal at Simla as neither s. Headings 2601 to 2617 do not, however, include minerals which have been submitted to processes not normal to the metallurgical industry.

There was an amendment in the said Chapter in the year 2011, whereby, inter alia, Chapter Note 4 was added, which reads as under: For the purposes of headings 2601 to 2617, the term ores means minerals of mineralogical species actually used in the Simranjeet Law Associates metallurgical industry for the extraction of mercury, of the metals of heading 2844 or of the metals of Section XIV or XV, even if they are intended for non- metallurgical purposes.

Indeed, when the Simranjeet Law Associates respondent made an anxious enquiry by SimranLaw his letter dated February 23, 1948, the Chief Administrative Officer informed him that necessary action would be taken and he would be addressed again on the subject. The only issue is as to which of the department of the State was competent to grant the sanction. On that basis, he proceeded to build up his case by submitting that Tariff Item 2601 which describes the goods as 'iron ores and concentrates, including roasted iron pyrite' clearly treated the two items differently i.

He also SimranLaw submitted that Tariff Item 2613 to which this product specifically related also gives the description as 'Molybdenum Ores and Concentrates' which would again mean that Molybdenum Ore was different from concentrate and two were distinct items. He, thus, was emphatic in his submission that now conversion of ore into Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu concentrate was treated as manufacture and, therefore, the concentrate could not be treated as same product as ore and it had transformed into an altogether different product.

After further correspondence, on June 7, 1949, the Chief Administrative Officer wrote to the respondent to make arrangements to take delivery of packages lying at New Delhi Station, but when the respondent went there to take delivery of the goods, he was told that the goods were not traceable. The object of this Bill is to provide that a Local Government shall not declare, under section 6 of the Act, that any land is needed for a public purpose unless time has been allowed after the notification under section 4 for persons interested in the land to put in objections and for such objections to be considered by the Local Government.

The Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 does not provide that person having an interest in land which it is proposed to acquire, shall have the right of objecting to such acquisition; nor is Government bound to enquire into and consider any objections that may reach them. 1988 (Annexure P-1), published in the Official Gazette, whereby the Madhya Pradesh Works (Allotment) Rules (for Short MPWAR) were amended, reads as under: From the Section quoted above, it is clear that the sanction for prosecution in respect of the public servant employed in connection with affairs of the State, who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, such Government shall be, authority to grant sanction for prosecution.

Furthermore, the decision on the Objections should be available in a self contained, speaking and reasoned order; reasons cannot be added to it later as that would be akin to putting old wine in new bottles.