Outcome: The matter was adjourned by four months, while the concerned High Courts were requested to dispose of the pending writ petitions within three months in terms of the earlier directions.

Outcome: Delay was condoned and the special leave petitions were dismissed as infructuous.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to suspension of the sentence of imprisonment and release on bail pending hearing of the appeal, having regard to the long period of incarceration and the likelihood of delay in disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The appellant had already undergone more than seven years of imprisonment and the hearing of the appeal was not likely in the near future. The Court took note of the appellant's readiness to deposit the fine and granted relief consistent with the need to avoid continued incarceration pending appellate consideration.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to suspension of the sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal and release on bail on depositing the fine, to be secured to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained interim protection against custody pending the High Court's consideration of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a convict has already undergone substantial imprisonment and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon, the sentence may be suspended and bail granted pending appeal on appropriate terms.

Issues: Whether the High Court was required to consider the appellant's grievance for higher special allowances on merits, despite an earlier writ petition having resulted only in a direction to make a representation.

Analysis: The earlier direction to make a representation did not close the matter or bar the appellant from approaching the High Court again after the representation was rejected. Since the High Court had not examined the claim on merits, the matter required substantive adjudication.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for consideration on merits.

Issues: Whether, after the goods were held excisable, the price of physician samples supplied to doctors was to be worked out on a pro rata basis under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 7 and Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, or on some other basis.

Analysis: The question of excisability of free medical samples was treated as having been answered by an earlier decision rendered the same day. On the valuation issue, the existing record showed that the Tribunal had not examined how the samples were to be valued after proceeding on the footing that the goods were excisable. The matter therefore required adjudication at the Tribunal level on the correct valuation method, including whether the pro rata method under the cited valuation provisions applied.

Conclusion: The valuation issue was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an issue of valuation remains undecided after a finding on excisability, the proper course is to remit the matter for determination under the applicable valuation provisions.

Outcome: All the connected matters were disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Outcome: The appeals were permitted to be withdrawn and stood dismissed as withdrawn.

Outcome: Permission to place additional documents on record was granted, the applications for intervention, impleadment and substitution were dismissed, the application for deletion of the names of certain respondents was allowed, and Writ Petition (C) No. 133 of 1998 was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the signed order. The remaining matters were reserved for judgment.