The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, and upheld the ruling of the excise appellate tribunal that 16 products produced by Ishaan Research Lab Ltd were Ayurvedic medicines, which attracted 10 per cent duty. The Revenue department's claim was that these products were cosmetics such as skin beautification creams, lotions, moisturisers and shampoos and were as such "cosmetics" and "toilet preparations" chargeable to 40 per cent duty.
Some of the products are bio-aloevera, bio-coconut, bio-saffron, bio-soya, bio-wheat, bio-wintergreen and bio-walnut. According to the authorities, the tribunal should have followed the law laid down in Supreme Court judgments to the effect that all these products were understood to be "cosmetics" in common parlance and not actually Ayurvedic medicines.
The company, on the other hand, argued that all the products in question have been manufactured under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and, therefore, the grant of drugs licence for the manufacture of these products would answer test in favour of the drug manufacturer. The Supreme Court, after analysing the precedents, rejected the arguments of the revenue department.
SC quashes HC court order in Talsons Builders’ case
The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had nominated an arbitrator in the dispute between the central government and Talson Builders, which completed a contract for Military Engineering Services. According to the government, it had paid the dues presented in the final bill, which was received without protest.
Later, the contractor moved the high court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the appointment of an arbitrator for the disputed amount. The high court appointed one. The government appealed to the Supreme Court which quashed the high court order as it was not according to the law. The high court was asked to reconsider whether an arbitrator could be appointed when there was full and final settlement of the dues.
SC criticises lack of coordination among departments
The Supreme Court has criticised the lack of coordination between various government departments in its judgment, Elizabeth Jacob vs District Collector. “There are thriving inter-departmental rivalries and a mutual non-caring attitude towards the functioning of other departments and enforcement of other statutes. Non-cooperation between the revenue department and the forest department, the revenue department and the mines and minerals department are too well-known. Unless immediate and serious steps are taken for improving the coordination, cooperation and understanding among various departments, offenders will escape, violators will walk away, national resources will be swindled and public interest will suffer,” the judgment said. In this case, the buyer of land auctioned by the government was not given possession due to a dispute over whether the land was forest land or non-forest land. The dispute remained pending for long years even after the money was paid. The Supreme Court upheld the high court order which asked the authorities to hand over possession of the land to the buyer.
AIIMS is an industry, says Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the All India Institute of Medical Institute (AIIMS) in New Delhi is an ‘industry’ for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this case, a casual worker was terminated. He challenged his dismissal before the labour court. It ordered his reinstatement without back wages. The management appealed to the high court arguing that it was not an industry and the temporary hand was not its workman. The high court upheld the labour court ruling. It rejected the contention of AIIMS that a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court was going to review the definition of ‘industry’ in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Calcutta HC decision in Glaxo case set aside
The Supreme Court last week set aside the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in the dispute between Glaxo Smith Kline Plc and the Controller of Patents and Designs over exclusive marketing rights. The Supreme Court pointed out that after the amendment to the Patent Act in 2005, the mode of adjudication of the claim for exclusive marketing rights was deleted. In view of this, the order of the division bench of the high court based on the earlier law was quashed.
