Therefore, it top legal service in Chandigarh was essential to have the licence from Midrex to operate the plant. Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2). Therefore, it was held by this Court that procurement of licence from Midrex was a precondition of sale which was specifically recorded in the agreement itself. There is no such stipulations in TAA in the present case. He needed a specific authorization in Chandigarh law firm that regard which would have then made him subordinate to the Director of Prosecution and not continued his subordination to the Deputy Director of Prosecution.
Therefore, this precluded him from appearing on behalf of the prosecution in the appeals filed by the accused persons in the High Court. Without the licence from Midrex, the imported plant was of no use to the buyer. It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. In view of specific terms and conditions to that effect in the agreement, this Court held that payments made to Midrex by way of licence fees had to be added to the price paid to TIL for purchase of the plant.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (1-A), if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix tariff values for any class of imported goods or export goods, having regard to the trend of value of such or like goods, and where any such tariff values are fixed, the duty shall be chargeable with reference to such tariff value. Thus, I find that these two payments were not independent to each other but the buyer has no option but to buy machinery once they have made commitment for technical legal services.
Anbazhagan had made out a case “that the public confidence in the fairness of trial is being seriously undermined”; As mentioned earlier, while it is not necessary to advert, in great detail, to the reasons for the transfer of the prosecution from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, the fact of the matter is that this court noted and cited “only a few instances to show how the prosecution appears to have acted hand in glove with the accused”; that Mr. At the time of signing of agreement both the parties fully understood that they will be signing another agreement on subsequent date relating to the sale of plant and machinery.
Nobody is going to pay DM 78 million in vacuum if the other agreement does not materialize. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the payment made as per the technical consultancy agreement is a condition of sale of imported goods. C/573/2001- A : See (2002) 142 ELT 343 (Tri); (2003) 156 ELT 62 (Tri); Therefore, in our view, the adjudicating authority erred in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court best lawyers in Chandigarh Essar Gujarat Ltd.
What is the scope and intent of the directions given by this court while transferring the prosecution from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka? However, such an high amount of DM 78 million has to be necessarily linked with the value of the purchase order which was US$ 169 million placed subsequently. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do.
C/573/2001-A : See (2002) 142 ELT 343 (Tri); (2003) 156 ELT 62 (Tri); (2006) 195 ELT 206 (Tri) and (2006) 205 ELT 208 (Tri)] the buyer had entered into a contract with TIL for purchase of direct reduction iron plant (“the plant”). [ From Final Order No. 512, para 17) “In our opinion, what was affected by the change of policy were merely the chances of promotion of the Air Vice-Marshals in the Navigation Stream.
Even though, this aspect has not been covered in the agreement for technical consultancy as at the time of signing this agreement the purchase order was not placed to M/s. As far as the posts of Air Marshals open to the Air Vice-Marshals in the said stream were concerned, their right or eligibility to be considered for promotion still remained and hence, there was no change in their conditions of service. The entire agreement was for import of the plant. The top Chandigarh law firms laid down by this Court being clear and explicit, the question which would arise for our consideration is whether best legal in Chandigarh then prevailing situation, what a reasonable man taking a reasonable view would have done.
Thirdly, reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 91 of 2002 dated 12-2-2002 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi lawyers in Chandigarh Appeal No. 91 of 2002 dated 12-2-2002 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. [ From Final Order No.