The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Customs against the rulings of the Bombay high court and the appellate tribunal in a batch of cases involving import of marbles. The importers did not have licences for importing rough marbles from Italy, China and other countries and therefore, the goods were confiscated. When the action was challenged by the importers in the tribunal, it reduced the redemption fine and penalty by taking into account the profit margin and the amount of demurrage incurred on the goods. The revenue department appealed to the high court without success and then approached the Supreme Court. It again dismissed the appeal observing that in the facts of the case, the question whether the reduction in redemption fine and penalty is justified or not, is essentially a finding of fact. It was not alleged that the order of the tribunal is arbitrary. In the absence of a question of law, the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the orders of the tribunal.
Claim over property by custodian of textile undertaking dismissed
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Custodian of Textile Undertaking, Mumbai, against the order of the Calcutta high court which rejected its claim to the property of Hall & Anderson Ltd in Kolkota. The firm had land in Kolkota in which it had run department stores and other services. It had closed them down later. The company had bought land in Mumbai and started a textile mill. The mill also ran into losses and it was taken over by the Textile Undertakings Take-over Act 1983. In the take-over of the Mumbai textile assets, the Kolkota property was also taken over. This was challenged by the company, arguing that the Kolkota property had nothing to do with the Mumbai assets and it was always kept separate for all legal purposes. The high court and the Supreme Court agreed with its contention.
HC order on daily wage employee’s case set aside
The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana high court in the appeal case of an employee, who was kept on daily wage since 1992 and terminated in 1999. The labour court asked the established to take him back and 50 per cent of back wages. The Haryana government appealed to the high court challenging the order of back wages. The high court quashed the entire order of the labour court. The employee, Ranbir Singh, appealed to the Supreme Court. It held that the high court was wrong in quashing the entire order of the labour court when the dispute before it was only about payment of back wages.
Free medical samples to doctors liable to excise duty
Free medical samples supplied to doctors by pharmaceutical companies are liable to excise duty, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a new appeal case involving Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The new case followed the 2003 ruling of the court in the Ranbaxy case, which had accepted the view of the excise authorities. Explaining the reason further, the court stated: “The primary reason for distributing free samples appears to be only for the purpose of advertising the product and thus enhancing the sale in the open market. It has been shown by research that the market of a pharma company is enhanced substantially by distribution of free samples. It serves as a marketing tool.” The court further emphasised that sale was not a necessary condition for charging excise duty, rejecting the company’s argument that physicians’ samples are prohibited from being sold under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and rules under it.
‘HC should not be misused to influence lower courts’
A high court cannot give a general direction to the criminal courts below that accused persons in cheque bouncing cases should be exempted from personal appearance. In this case, T G N Kumar vs State of Kerala, the high court issued general directions to the courts below to streamline the criminal justice system. Setting aside the orders and upholding the magistrate's power to summon a person in a cheque bounce case, the Supreme Court said that the trial court alone can decide whether or not an accused person deserved to be exempted from personal attendance. “The magistrate is the master of the court in so far as the progress of the trial is concerned and none else,” it added. The high court’s power should not be misused to ‘influence’ the subordinate judiciary to pass judgments in a particular manner.
