A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court (SC) last week harmonised some of its earlier judgements on a significant issue regarding eligibility of firms to get benefit of exemption from remission of excise duty, while allowing the appeal of the revenue authorities in the case, Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s Hari Chand Shri Gopal. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had granted benefit to the firm relying upon a Supreme Court judgement (Thermax Pvt Ltd vs Collector of Customs; 1992).
The Excise Commissioner appealed against it. A three-judge bench referred certain doubts about the earlier judgments to the Constitution bench. The court, in its unanimous judgment, stated that the Thermax case was decided on the facts of that case and was not applicable in other cases like the present one. The firm in this case, manufacturers of chewing tobacco products, claimed benefit as it maintained that their intermediate goods were captively consumed for manufacture of final goods. They argued that the court should consider the 'intended use' and 'substantial compliance' of requirements of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The court allowed the appeal of the excise authorities, rejecting the argument of the assessee firm stating that "non-compliance of those conditions enumerated under various excise rules and non-furnishing of various statutory forms are fatal to the plea of substantial compliance and intended use."
Firms free to fix duty hours
The management of an establishment has discretion in fixing the hours of duty of its employees, the SC stated last week while dismissing the appeal of the Transport & Dock Workers Union against the judgment of the Bombay high court in which it had upheld the enhancement of working hours of the clerical recruits of Mumbai Port Trust. The new employees had to work one hour more. This was challenged as discriminatory. However, the SC stated that “fixing of hours of work, provided they do not violate any statutory provision or statutory rule, are really management functions and the court must exercise restraint and not ordinarily interfere with such management functions”.
Arbitrator appointed in dispute
The SC last week appointed an arbitrator in a dispute between Alva Aluminium Ltd of Bangkok and Gabriel India Ltd under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Indian company disputed that there was an arbitration clause in the international commercial agreement relating to the sale of aluminium ingots by the foreign company to the Indian company. The latter denied that there was an agreement for arbitration. However, the court found that there was indeed a clause in the contract referring to arbitration. Therefore, rejecting the Indian company's argument, the court appointed a former chief justice of the Rajasthan high court, Anil Dev Singh, as the arbitrator.
Interim order cannot be invoked after dismissal of petition
Also Read
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd against Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd and confirmed the demand of additional charges/surcharge payable on delayed payment. The power-intensive company had challenged the demand of a higher rate in the Andhra Pradesh high court. It passed certain interim orders in its favour. However, the petition was ultimately dismissed, leading to the demand of the charges. The company disputed it based on the interim relief. The SC ruled that "a party who fails in the proceedings cannot benefit from the interim order issued during the pending of such proceedings."
Compensation in road mishap related to claimant’s age
The Supreme Court has ruled in a motor vehicles accident insurance case that where the age of the claimant is higher than the person who died, the age of the claimant should be taken into account for capitalisation of the loss of dependency. It is not the age of the deceased person which should be considered, the court stated in the case, Shakti Devi vs New India Insurance Co. In this case, the mother aged more than 55 was the claimant. Her 22-year-old son died in a road accident. The tribunal considered his income as Rs 1,000 a month and allowed Rs 60,000 as compensation to the mother. The Jharkhand high court confirmed the figure. On appeal, the Supreme Court hiked the amount to Rs 1.32 lakh.
SC sets aside HC order
The SC has set aside the judgment of the Kerala HC in a long-standing dispute between Malayalam Plantations Ltd and the state government and asked the high court to reconsider the issues. The long-winding litigation started in 1975 over the vesting of several estates in Wynad district owned by the company in the state under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Appeals have come to the SC and gone back to the forest tribunal a few times. In the latest appeal, the SC noted that both parties wanted to file additional evidence and therefore the high court should consider the issue and pass an order within six months.
Interim order cannot be invoked after dismissal of petition
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd against Transmission Corp of Andhra Pradesh Ltd and confirmed the demand of additional charges/surcharge payable on delayed payment. The power-intensive company had challenged the demand of a higher rate in the Andhra Pradesh HC. It passed certain interim orders in its favour. However, the petition was ultimately dismissed, leading to the demand of the charges. The company disputed it largely based on the interim relief. The SC ruled that "a party who fails in the proceedings cannot benefit from the interim order issued during the pending of such proceedings."
Compensation in road mishap related to claimant’s age
The SC has ruled in a motor vehicles accident insurance case, where the age of the claimant is higher than the person who died, the age of the claimant should be taken into account for capitalisation of the loss of dependency. It is not the age of the deceased person which should be considered, the court stated in the case, Shakti Devi vs New India Insurance Co. In this case, the mother aged more than 55 was the claimant. Her 22-year-old son died in a road accident. The tribunal considered his income as Rs 1,000 a month and allowed Rs 60,000 as compensation to the mother. The Jharkhand high court confirmed the figure. On appeal, the Supreme Court hiked the amount to Rs 1.32 lakh.