A product with a very short shelf life is still marketable and cannot claim exemption from excise duty on that account, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd against the view of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. The pharma company had argued that its Vitamin A in crude form had a shelf life of only two to three days and therefore the product was not marketable. Therefore, central excise cannot be imposed on it. The tribunal rejected the contention. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s view and clarified: “Short shelf life cannot be equated with no shelf life and would not ipso facto mean that it cannot be marketed. A shelf life of two to three days is sufficiently long enough for a product to be commercially marketed.”
Employer must prove misconduct for dismissal
When an employee is dismissed for misconduct, the employer has the burden to prove that the action was justified, the Supreme Court stated last week in the case of some workers of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. It is not for the employee to prove that he was not guilty. The labour court and the Punjab & Haryana high court had held that the burden was upon the employee. The Supreme Court reversed the decision. In one case, the worker was dismissed without enquiry alleging that he was indulging in tool-down strike. His appeals were dismissed by the courts below on the ground that it was for him to prove that he had not misconducted himself. Allowing his appeal with cost, the Supreme Court emphasised that a worker cannot be asked to prove at the first instance that he had not committed any misconduct. The labour court was asked to dispose of this case expeditiously.
Auction for recovering debt stayed
The Supreme Court last week stayed the auction proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act in the appeal of Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd vs IFCI Ltd. The company had taken a loan from Punjab National Bank but it met with financial difficulties and the matter went to the debt recovery tribunal. Meanwhile, proceedings under the Securitisation also started. On its appeal, the Supreme Court directed the appellate tribunal to dispose of the case as early as possible, and till then the auction will be stayed.
SC mulls eligibility of ‘electrodes’ for credit under Cenvat rules
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether welding electrodes used for manufacture of final products and maintenance are eligible for credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. In this batch of appeals, led by the case, Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise, the companies cited last years’ Supreme Court judgment in the Maruti Suzuki case to argue that welding electrodes would come within the definition of ‘inputs’ in Rule 2(g) as they were used in relation to manufacture of final products. The present judgment stated that the Suzuki decision gave a restricted meaning to the definition of ‘inputs’. Parliament did not intend to give such a narrow meaning. Therefore, the Suzuki judgment and another judgment in the case of Vikram Cement (2006) required reconsideration, the two-judge said while referring the issue to a three-judge bench which will be constituted by the Chief Justice.
Case of impersonation against CA
Also Read
A chartered accountant who is not a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India but impersonating as one can be charged under the Indian Penal Code or under other laws for offences, the Supreme Court stated while allowing the appeal of the institute. The Madhya Pradesh high court had taken a different view. In this case, ICAI vs Vimal Kumar, the institute filed a complaint before the police alleging forgery and impersonation. The trial court ruled that there was no basis for framing charges under IPC. The high court rejected the appeal of the institute stating that though a case was made out under the Chartered Accountants Act, the complaint was not under that Act, but under IPC. The institute appealed to the Supreme Court which set aside the high court judgment and directed prosecution under IPC.
Pfizer Products gets injunction in trademark case
The Delhi high court last week passed an injunction in favour of Pfizer Products and against Stallion Laboratories in a trade mark disputes over a cough medicine. Pfizer argued that it was selling the syrup Corex since 1964 and it was a highly sought after product. However, Stallion has started selling another medicine, Sorex, which sounded similar, and in packages which were likely to deceive customers. Accepting the plea of the foreign company, the high court passed an order preventing the Indian company from selling its product.