| There was a dispute between the two companies over payment of $16,000. The company judge had asked the Indian company to pay part of the amount. The Division Bench dismissed its stay application. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no justification whatsoever for admitting the winding up petition. |
| No excise on silver chloride |
| The Supreme Court has directed the Commissioner of Central Excise to refund Rs 1.13 crore with interest, being the duty collected from Hindustan Zinc Ltd on silver chloride while allowing the appeal of the government undertaking. |
| The company, which is engaged in manufacturing zinc, maintained that silver chloride was an intermediate product obtained in the course of extraction of zinc and it was a residue and not marketable. |
| According to the revenue authorities, however, it was excisable. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Cestat) ruled in favour of the department. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Cestat decision and asked the government to refund the duty collected. |
| Rule 3 rules in case of excise classification |
| When goods are classifiable under two or more headings in the Central Excise Tariff Act, the revenue authorities must follow Rule 3 framed under the Act, the Supreme Court said in the case of Commissioner vs Simplex Mills Ltd. |
| The company manufactures grey cotton canvas cloth, 100 per cent cotton, belting and duck. It claimed nil duty under Chapters 52 and 54. |
| However, the department classified them under Chapter 59 and charged 12 per cent duty. Cestat ruled in the company's favour. The department's appeal was dismissed, after explaining the rules of interpretation. |
| Truth prevails in voluntary disclosure |
| The Income Tax Settlement Commission can pass orders in an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act only if the assessee makes a "full and true disclosure" of his income earlier not disclosed, the Supreme Court said in the case of Commissioner vs O P Mittal. |
| In this case, the authorities raided the premises of Mittal and seized receipts worth more than Rs 1.5 crore. He filed an application for settlement. The CBI found that his claim that they were loans was not trustworthy. The settlement commission, however, passed an order in his favour. |
| On appeal, the Supreme Court emphasised that the declaration contemplated in Section 245C was in the nature of voluntary disclosure of concealed income, but it must be a true and fair disclosure. |
| A legal assistant is not a workman |
| A legal assistant in a company is not a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, according to the Supreme Court. It allowed the appeal of the company in Management of Sonepat Mills vs Ajit Singh and held that the labour court was wrong in deciding that his job was of a "legal clerical nature" and, therefore, he was a workman. |
| The Supreme Court said that his job was not a stereotype one, but involved creativity. He not only used to render legal opinions but also drafted pleadings. |
Explore Business Standard