The Supreme Court has ruled that a house provided by a company to a manager should be vacated by the legal representatives after his death. If they do not vacate the premises, they would be liable for criminal action under Section 630 of the Companies Act. This ruling was given in the case, Gopika Chandrabhushan vs M/s XLO India Ltd. The house in Mumbai was owned by the Maharani of Gwalior and was leased to API Ltd, which allotted it to Chandrabhushan who was a director of that company.
Later he joined as managing director of XLO India and the lease continued with the agreement of the two companies. After his death, his daughter did not vacate the premises as demanded by the company. This resulted in litigation at several levels. Dismissing her appeal, the Supreme Court asserted that after the death of the executive, his legal representatives are duty-bound to vacate the leased house. Otherwise, they would be liable for penalty under Section 630, which provides for a speedy and summary procedure to tackle such cases.
Duty exemption for goods carrying brands of other companies
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Unison Electronics (P) Ltd against the ruling of the Customs, Excise & Service Tribunal (CESTAT) that denied excise duty exemption for goods which carried brand names of other companies. Under a central government notification, small scale industries were provided exemption in excise duty, but not those units which bore brand name or trade name of other companies. In this case, the company manufactured ice cream makers and popcorn makers and sold them to different customers. When the excise supervisors checked the goods dispatched from the factory, some carried stickers with other companies' names. The officials treated them as brand names belonging to other companies and denied benefits under the small scale exemption notification. The SSI maintained that they were not brand names but names of the companies. This argument was rejected by the Commissioner of Excise and CESTAT. The SSI's appeal to the Supreme Court was also not successful.
No permit required for import of old machines
Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Kerala The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Kerala high court and held in the case, Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, that import of second hand photocopy machines before January 2005 required no import licence according to the circulars of the Director General of Foreign Trade.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had agreed with the importer that it required no permit and quashed the show cause notice threatening confiscation of the goods. The high court quashed the CESTAT order. On the other hand, the Calcutta high court upheld the tribunal’s view. The Supreme Court favoured the Calcutta high court stand and disapproved of the Kerala high court view. The government’s appeals against the Calcutta High Court judgment were set aside.
