Central Excise – Definition of Manufacture – Civil Appeal concerning the interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Appellant (Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur) argued that the activity of labelling and relabelling by the respondent (Jindal Drugs Ltd.) does not constitute manufacture – Held that the amendment to Note 3 effective from 01.03.2008, replacing "and" with "or", widened the scope to include labelling or relabelling as independent processes amounting to manufacture – CESTAT's decision affirming respondent's eligibility to cenvat credit and rebate upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-18]

Labelling and Re-labelling – Interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 – Analysis – Post amendment, Note 3 deems three independent activities as manufacture: (i) labelling or relabelling, (ii) repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, and (iii) any other treatment to render the product marketable – Held, the respondent’s activity of labelling at the Taloja unit falls within the scope of "manufacture" under Note 3 – No suppression or misrepresentation by respondent – Extended period of limitation not applicable. [Paras 5.6-5.12, 13.1-13.4, 15-16]

Extended Period of Limitation - Suppression of Facts - Whether the respondent suppressed facts to avail cenvat credit and rebate - Held, no suppression or misrepresentation by the respondent - Extended period of limitation not available to the revenue. [Para 5.11]

Decision – Appeal by Revenue Dismissed – The view taken by CESTAT affirmed – The respondent's activity amounts to manufacture as per the amended Note 3 – Cenvat credit and rebate claims by respondent upheld – No penalty imposed on respondent – Civil Appeal Nos. 788-790 of 2022 also dismissed – No order as to costs. [Paras 16-18]

Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Construction of Compound Wall - Impleading Necessary Parties - High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to permit construction of a compound wall under police protection - Order based on "Minutes of Order" filed by advocates - Non-joinder of necessary parties (local tribals) who would be affected by the construction - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order, holding that it is unlawful to pass orders affecting third parties without hearing them - Case remanded to High Court with directions to implead necessary parties and reconsider the matter. [Paras 1-26]

Practice of Minutes of Order - Legality and Procedure - Detailed analysis of the practice of passing orders based on "Minutes of Order" - Court must ensure that orders are lawful and all necessary parties are impleaded - Orders passed in terms of "Minutes of Order" are not consent orders but are orders in invitum - Advocates and Court's duty to ensure legality and proper impleadment before passing such orders. [Paras 16-20]

Review and Remand - Court's Direction on Remand - High Court to re-examine the case, implead necessary parties, and reconsider the legality of the construction of the compound wall - Construction already carried out to be subject to final decision - Directions to restore status quo ante if necessary parties are not impleaded or if construction is found illegal. [Paras 21-23]

Decision - Appeal Partly Allowed - High Court's orders dated 16th March 2022 and 20th July 2023 set aside - Writ Petition restored for reconsideration with specific directions to the High Court regarding impleadment of necessary parties and reconsideration of the construction legality - Appeal partly allowed. [Para 24]

Quashing of Proceedings –  Marriage and Dowry Disputes - Complaint under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act alleging harassment for dowry by the appellant's in-laws and husband - FIR registered following non-response to police notices, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants - High Court quashed proceedings citing procedural irregularities, lack of specific allegations, and jurisdiction issues - Supreme Court finds partial error in High Court's decision, reinstates proceedings against respondents 3, 4, and 8, but upholds quashing for respondents 5 to 7 due to vague allegations - Noted misuse of Section 41A Cr.P.C. and jurisdictional errors in High Court's ruling. [Para 1-19]

Allegations and Procedural Non-Compliance – Analysis – High Court quashes criminal proceedings primarily due to non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., lack of jurisdiction of Jamshedpur court, and generalized allegations in the complaint – Supreme Court finds fault with High Court's approach of conducting a 'mini-trial' and dismissing allegations as omnibus without sufficient examination. [Paras 3-13]

Jurisdiction and Arrest Procedures – Focus on compliance with procedural norms and territorial jurisdiction – High Court’s decision based on improper service of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and erroneous jurisdictional claims – Supreme Court finds partial merit in jurisdiction claims based on location of alleged offenses and complainant's residence. [Paras 6-12, 16-17]

Decision – Partial Quashing of Proceedings – Supreme Court allows appeal in part, setting aside High Court's quashing of proceedings against specific respondents implicated directly in dowry demands and alleged physical abuse, while upholding quashing for respondents with vague or insufficiently detailed allegations against them. [Paras 14-19]

Stamp Duty - Legislative Competence - Constitutionality - The Supreme Court of India examined whether the State of Rajasthan has the legislative competence to levy and collect stamp duty on insurance policies issued within the state. The court held that the state does possess such competence under Entry 44 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Constitution of India, while the rate of such duty must be prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I (Union List). [Paras 1-19]

Applicability of State Law - The court determined that the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, applies to the insurance policies issued between 1993-94 and 2001-02, as the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, came into force only on 27.05.2004. [Paras 8-12]

Stamp Duty Payment Mechanism - The court clarified that under the 1952 Act and the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, the duty must be paid to the state government, and the stamps must be purchased from the state treasury. However, in the present case, due to the non-availability of stamps, the appellant purchased them from Maharashtra, which led to a dispute. [Paras 20-31]

VVS Rama Sharma Case Distinguished - The court distinguished the present case from VVS Rama Sharma v. State of UP, noting that the latter pertained to a different factual and legal context under the UP Stamp Rules framed under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and did not involve a state law with Presidential assent like the 1952 Act in Rajasthan. [Paras 27-30]

Relief Granted - While affirming the state’s power to levy stamp duty, the court directed that the state government should not demand and collect stamp duty as per the disputed orders dated 16.09.2004, 16.10.2004, 11.10.2004, 01.11.2004, and 28.10.2004, given the specific circumstances and administrative lapses noted. [Paras 32-37]

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was affirmed, except for the specific directions to set aside the demands of stamp duty as per the aforementioned orders. [Paras 38-39]

Criminal Law - NDPS - Appeals from Gujarat High Court's confirmation of convictions for possession and trafficking of heroin under NDPS Act, specifically scrutinizing procedural compliance and reliability of evidence - Appeals arise from a common judgment rejecting appellants' claims of statutory non-compliance and challenging evidence integrity - Appellant Anwarkhan's conviction upheld based on credible recovery of heroin, corroborated by reliable witness testimonies and adherence to statutory mandates of the NDPS Act - Appellant Firdoskhan acquitted due to procedural lapses, unreliable witness identification, and the inadmissibility of confession under Section 67 NDPS post Tofan Singh judgment - Anwarkhan (A-1) convicted with substantial evidence confirming adherence to Sections 42 and 50 NDPS; upheld by Supreme Court - Firdoskhan's (A-2) acquitted based on insufficient evidence on procedural compliance, absence at the crime scene, and failure in legal substantiation of his confession - Held: Criminal Appeal No. 2045 of 2010 (Anwarkhan): Dismissed. Conviction upheld, appellant to surrender to serve remainder of sentence - Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 2010 (Firdoskhan): Allowed. Conviction quashed and set aside. Acquitted of all charges, bail bonds discharged [Paras 1-34]

Leave Granted by Supreme Court and Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, finding the High Court's denial of bail for the appellant as cryptic and insufficiently reasoned - Orders the remission of the case to the High Court for a fresh evaluation of the bail request - Directs the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court to assign a different judge for reconsideration. [Paras 1-5]

Directions for Rearrangement of Bail Hearing - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order, stressing the need for a detailed and reasoned consideration, thereby enhancing procedural justice and fairness in bail proceedings - Ensures that the case will receive a fair reevaluation, impacting the appellant's rights to a fair bail hearing. [Para 4-5]

Grant of Interim Bail – Petitioner seeks interim bail due to daughter's marriage ceremonies – High Court upheld conviction under IPC Sections 148, 149, 302, 324 – Despite main ceremony on 28.04.2024 being concluded, local customs necessitate petitioner's presence for subsequent rituals – Respondent-State has no objections to the grant of interim bail – Court allows interim bail for one week with conditions including daily reporting and two sureties, one being a close blood relation - Petitioner to surrender by 8th May 2024.

• A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and others, (1984) 2 SCC 656
• Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013) 10 SCC 500
• N. Chandrababu Naidu and Others v. Union of India and Another (2019) 15 SCC 377.
• Nyaya Bhoomi and Another v. Election Commission of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1332/2018 order dated 22.11.2018 (SC)
• Tech for All v. Election Commission of India order dated 21.05.2019 dismissed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 692/2019 (SC)
• Prakash Joshi v. Election Commission of India  2017 SCC OnLine SC 1734
• Madhya Pradesh Jan Vikash Party v. Election Commission of India order dated 30.09.2022 dismissed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16870/2022 (SC)
• Sunil Ahya v. Election Commission of India order dated 22.09.2023 dismissed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 826/2023 (SC)
• Kamal Nath v. Election Commission of India and Others (2019) 2 SCC 260
• Election Commission of India v Ashok Kumar (2000) 8 SCC 216
• N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 377
• D.A.V. College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab (1971) 2 SCC 261
• Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu   (2016) 2 SCC 725
• Daryao and others v. State of U.P. and others (1962) 1 SCR 574
• Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association. v. State of Maharashtra and others (1990) 2 SCC 715

Marital Deceit and Financial Inducement – Appeal challenging orders quashing summoning for offences under Section 420 and Section 120-B IPC against respondents – Allegations of deceit regarding marital status and financial inducement involving ₹2 lakhs for marriage expenses – Initial order of summoning by Trial Court based on evidence of deceit and dishonest inducement – Orders quashed by Sessions Court and upheld by High Court without substantial reasoning – Supreme Court restores summoning order, emphasizes prima facie case against respondents [Paras 2-16].

Evidence and Legal Proceedings – Complainant presented both documentary and oral evidence establishing a prima facie case at the trial court – Forged divorce decree shown to appellant – High Court and Sessions Court failed to appreciate the sufficiency of evidence at the summoning stage – Supreme Court finds fault in lower courts' approach, highlighting that only prima facie establishment is necessary at the preliminary stage [Paras 3, 4, 7, 11-16].

Legal Misapplication by Lower Courts – Misinterpretation and misapplication of the legal standard for summoning accused in criminal conspiracy and cheating cases discussed – Supreme Court criticizes the approach of not considering cumulative facts and evidence leading up to the summons – Rectification by Supreme Court, restoring the magistrate’s initial summoning order [Paras 12.1, 14-15].

Decision: Supreme Court allows the appeal, sets aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restores the order of the Magistrate for summoning the respondents under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC – Trial to proceed based on merits with all evidence considered [Para 16].