Judgment to be reviewed

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court has found two "manifest errors" in its own judgment delivered two years ago in the Indian Charge Chrome Ltd vs Union of India case, resulting in "grave miscarriage of justice".

Therefore, in the order passed last fortnight, it has recalled the earlier judgment for reconsideration.

The issue arose from the recommendation of the Orissa government to the central government in 1999 for granting chromite mining rights to Nava Bharat Alloys Ltd in respect of 85 hectares in Jajpur district.

This was challenged by Indian Charge Chrome Ltd without success. The company then filed a review petition, pointing out two serious errors. One of them was that the chief minister did not give "special reasons" for the preference shown to Nava Bharat.

Another error was that the Centre's approval was obtained in an unauthorised manner. The Supreme Court will re-examine the case from these angles.

Bombay port decision upheld

The Supreme Court stated last week that the decision of the board of trust of the Bombay Port to deduct 50 per cent of the sale proceeds of unclaimed cargo towards expenses of public auction was legally sound.

It dismissed the appeal of Gujarat Cypromet Ltd, which had imported copper cathodes from Germany but did not clear them leading to public auction. When the goods were sold, it moved the court arguing that the decision was illegal.

The Supreme Court rejected the contention and asserted that the board has the power to take the policy in view of the congestion in the port. Even after deducting 50 per cent of the sale proceeds, the port is suffering losses as the expenses of the auction could not be quantified.

Cegat ruling overruled

The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the excise commissioner against Universal Glass Ltd, Ghaziabad, which is a division of Jagatjit Industries Ltd, Kapurthala. Half of the bottles produced by Universal was captively consumed by the holding company.

The remaining was sold to industrial consumers like Dabur, Hamdard, Maaza and Kissan. The authorities issued show cause notices to Universal alleging incorrect price declarations to evade duty.

They also found that Ashok Sales Agency was set up to create an artificial gate price for jars and jugs of Malatova and Viva. The so-called franchisees were not independent buyers but were put up to create an artificial market. The company objected to these allegations.

The Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Cegat) was convinced by the company's contentions. However, the Supreme Court criticised it and found that the commissioner's charges were correct and well-reasoned. Excise exemption plea turned down

Excise exemption to goods for use in 100 per cent export-oriented units is available only if they go directly into the manufacture of the products exported out of India, the Supreme Court said while allowing the appeal of the Commissioner against Ginni Filaments Ltd.

In this case, the company claimed exemption for capital assets like air conditioners and furniture, while moving them from the export unit to its factory.

The department demanded duty on such goods, which was struck down by Cegat. On appeal by the department, the Supreme Court quashed the Cegat judgment.