A drug manufacturing firm, which gets certain products made by job workers on their premises, would not be liable to pay excise duty on the goods, the Supreme Court has stated in its judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa vs M/s Cosme Farma Laboratories. The commissioner had issued a show cause notice to the drug firm and the workers asking them why penalty should not be imposed on them under the Central Excise Act. The firm moved the Excise Appellate Tribunal which found in its favour. The revenue authorities moved the Supreme Court. Dismissing the appeal, the court stated that the excise law is different from the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. They are enacted for different purposes. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act is meant to control the quality of drugs for which licences are given under the Act. It also allows the pharma firms to get drugs made by someone else under its supervision. The excise law cannot be invoked in this case as the issue is not the quality of the drugs.
Condition for Customs exemption
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd, a contractor for the Golden Quadrilateral project in Andhra Pradesh, which was denied exemption in Customs duty for importing electronic hot mix plant from German firm Lintec GmbH. A purchase order was placed on the foreign firm for supply of the plant. The importer split the contract between Lintec and an Indian firm, Marshalls of Chennai. The German firm will supply the "critical items" while the Chennai firm will supply various other items, also imported. The court ruled that only a complete plant was exempted from the duty and not components which did not have the essential characteristics of a hot mix plant.
Rail track in factory is 'capital goods'
Gender bias at workplace denied
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition moved by a former woman employee of Coca-Cola Co who sought arbitration regarding her complaint about gender discrimination and harassment in service conditions relating to pay and emoluments. She invoked the mechanism of arbitration under "solution programme" of the US parent company claiming compensation for her suffering harassment in the course of employment. The company rejected the complaint in the in-house investigation and asserted that the solution programme was not applicable to her but only to employees in the US. Accepting this argument, the Supreme Court in the judgment, Payal Chawla vs Coca-Cola, stated there was no arbitration agreement between her and the employer and, therefore, the Arbitration Act could not be invoked. Further, there is no word about the solution programme in the job contract, the judgment said.
Damages for electrocuted maid
The Supreme Court has imposed compensation on the employers of a housemaid who was electrocuted in their house while operating a washing machine due to faulty wiring. Her husband had filed a criminal case against her employers, but the Kerala High Court quashed it, as it was not considered a "rash and negligent" act making it an offence. On appeal, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to help the family in the poor social strata. In the judgment, Rajan vs Joseph, the court noted that the government had already paid Rs 1 lakh and the employers should also match the figure.
Gammon India plea on bids rejected
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed the writ petition of Gammon India Ltd which had challenged the rejection of its bid by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. The firm alleged that its bid was rejected on irrelevant considerations and another firm was selected for the project. The Metro corporation maintained that the bid was rightly rejected because the firm's performance in the Chennai metro project was not satisfactory and there was abandonment of work in Delhi also. The high court stated that the technical committee and the tender evaluation committee after evaluation of Gammon's bid had concluded that the bid was not suitable. It said courts would not interfere in commercial contracts and judicial review was justifiable only if there was arbitrariness or mala fides.
Hawkins Cookers wins copyright case
The Calcutta High Court has granted injunction against Khaitan Pressure Cooker Ltd on an application by Hawkins Cookers Ltd alleging infringement of registered copyright for its logo with deceptively similar label on the product. Khaitan defended its case asserting that the mark was not an original work of art and the marks are dissimilar. However, the court found that Hawkins has made out a case for injunction and it was entitled to three reliefs: compensatory damages, nominal damages and punitive damages. The company had benefited out of the sales and therefore it must compensate Hawkins with the profits it had earned. It should also make over the profits earned after it changed its logo. Hawkins is also entitled to punitive damages of Rs 10 lakh so as to prevent further infringement of the trade mark, the judgment said.
Condition for Customs exemption
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd, a contractor for the Golden Quadrilateral project in Andhra Pradesh, which was denied exemption in Customs duty for importing electronic hot mix plant from German firm Lintec GmbH. A purchase order was placed on the foreign firm for supply of the plant. The importer split the contract between Lintec and an Indian firm, Marshalls of Chennai. The German firm will supply the "critical items" while the Chennai firm will supply various other items, also imported. The court ruled that only a complete plant was exempted from the duty and not components which did not have the essential characteristics of a hot mix plant.
Rail track in factory is 'capital goods'
Also Read
Laying down a rail track to convey raw materials within the establishment for manufacturing process would qualify for Modvat credit as it would be included in the definition of capital goods. The Supreme Court set aside the contrary view of the revenue authorities and the appellate tribunal in the case, Jayaswal Neco Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Show cause notice was issued to the steel company in Indore for claiming the credit on the ground that the laying of the railway track did not manufacture or produce any other goods and therefore not entitled to the benefit. Moreover, it was alleged that the tracks were used for extraneous purposes other than conveying hot metal. Rejecting this view, the Supreme Court remarked that even if the track was used for incidental or innocuous purposes, the track can be treated as capital goods.
Gender bias at workplace denied
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition moved by a former woman employee of Coca-Cola Co who sought arbitration regarding her complaint about gender discrimination and harassment in service conditions relating to pay and emoluments. She invoked the mechanism of arbitration under "solution programme" of the US parent company claiming compensation for her suffering harassment in the course of employment. The company rejected the complaint in the in-house investigation and asserted that the solution programme was not applicable to her but only to employees in the US. Accepting this argument, the Supreme Court in the judgment, Payal Chawla vs Coca-Cola, stated there was no arbitration agreement between her and the employer and, therefore, the Arbitration Act could not be invoked. Further, there is no word about the solution programme in the job contract, the judgment said.
Damages for electrocuted maid
The Supreme Court has imposed compensation on the employers of a housemaid who was electrocuted in their house while operating a washing machine due to faulty wiring. Her husband had filed a criminal case against her employers, but the Kerala High Court quashed it, as it was not considered a "rash and negligent" act making it an offence. On appeal, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to help the family in the poor social strata. In the judgment, Rajan vs Joseph, the court noted that the government had already paid Rs 1 lakh and the employers should also match the figure.
Gammon India plea on bids rejected
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed the writ petition of Gammon India Ltd which had challenged the rejection of its bid by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. The firm alleged that its bid was rejected on irrelevant considerations and another firm was selected for the project. The Metro corporation maintained that the bid was rightly rejected because the firm's performance in the Chennai metro project was not satisfactory and there was abandonment of work in Delhi also. The high court stated that the technical committee and the tender evaluation committee after evaluation of Gammon's bid had concluded that the bid was not suitable. It said courts would not interfere in commercial contracts and judicial review was justifiable only if there was arbitrariness or mala fides.
Hawkins Cookers wins copyright case
The Calcutta High Court has granted injunction against Khaitan Pressure Cooker Ltd on an application by Hawkins Cookers Ltd alleging infringement of registered copyright for its logo with deceptively similar label on the product. Khaitan defended its case asserting that the mark was not an original work of art and the marks are dissimilar. However, the court found that Hawkins has made out a case for injunction and it was entitled to three reliefs: compensatory damages, nominal damages and punitive damages. The company had benefited out of the sales and therefore it must compensate Hawkins with the profits it had earned. It should also make over the profits earned after it changed its logo. Hawkins is also entitled to punitive damages of Rs 10 lakh so as to prevent further infringement of the trade mark, the judgment said.