The central excise authorities used a 'small window' in law, as the Supreme Court called it, to deny refund of excess duty collected from Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd in the assessment years 1970-78. In the 40 years of tortuous litigation, the revenue authorities lost in every legal forum, ultimately losing their face now in the apex court. The dispute related to freight involved in the dispatch of cement to various destinations. The department had included the cost of freight while determining the assessable value. This was challenged by the company in the tribunal. It allowed the petition in 1989 and ordered the department to refund the excess levied. That was not done for a long time, leading to further litigation. Meanwhile, the excise law was amended. The department then invoked the amendment and later judgments to challenge the long-pending order of refund. The appeals reached the Delhi High Court. It ruled that the refund order came before the amendment and therefore it should be paid. The department made a last-ditch effort in the Supreme Court but it was futile. The judgment pointed out that the order of refund was passed in 1989 and merely because the order was not complied with, the authorities could not withhold the refund based on new law.
Arbitrator named in row with Chinese firm
The Supreme Court, last week, appointed former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, A P Shah, to arbitrate in the dispute between Chinese firm TBEA Shenyang Transformers Group Ltd and Alstom Projects India Ltd relating to transformers supplied for Chuzachen Project in Sikkim. The Indian firm alleged that the transformers were defective and therefore went ahead and invoked the bank guarantee given by the Chinese firm, though the latter reportedly offered to replace the equipment. The Chinese firm had earlier moved the Vadodara district court, the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court itself without success. Therefore, it invoked the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court allowed the petition and asked the judge to conduct the proceedings in Delhi.
SC upholds Sebi order
The Supreme Court has dismissed with costs the appeal of Kosha Investments d against the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal upholding the order of Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi) directing it to make public announcement in terms of Sebi (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations. The firm acquired shares of Snowcem India Ltd and became one of its promoters. Following this, Sebi conducted an investigation into the period when there was an initial upward movement in the price of shares of Snowcem and also substantial increase in the volume of trade. It also faced charges in another proceeding for unfair practices. Ultimately, Sebi concluded that the firm was already holding between 15 per cent to 75 per cent shares of the target company Snowcem and it could acquire additional shares of this company through creeping acquisition mode, that is, without public announcement only up to five per cent of its paid up capital during the relevant period. It acquired more shares than the regulations permitted without making public announcement. Therefore, it was held guilty. The appellate tribunal and the court upheld the action.
Tight-fisted orders in compensation
Courts could be stingy while awarding compensation for road accidents. It could even ask the victim to refund part of it with interest. But the Supreme Court came to the defence of one such victim and criticised the Gujarat High Court and the Godhra motor accident claims tribunal for being tight-fisted. In this case, a young constable lost his memory and speech when a state bus hit him while riding a bicycle in 1987. While the tribunal awarded him Rs 2.19 lakh considering 50 per cent loss of faculties he had suffered, the high court reduced the amount to Rs 1.15 lakh. It even ordered him to return the balance with 12 per cent interest to the state corporation. Mithusinh Chauhan appealed against the high court order and sought higher amount due to his injuries, hospital expenses, loss of amenities and future expenses. Allowing his appeal, the apex court judgment stated "in a case of this nature, the injuries sustained by the man are more painful because he has to live his remaining life with such disabilities. This undoubtedly deprives him of normal life. The courts below failed to take note of this material fact while determining the compensation."
Criminal case against scientists quashed
The Supreme Court, last week, quashed criminal proceedings against International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials and its top directors, initiated by Nimra Cerglass Technics Ltd alleging cheating. The latter filed a criminal complaint alleging that there was a transfer of technology agreement between it and the research institute under the Ministry of Science and Technology. On that basis, Nimra invested huge amounts in an industrial unit in Hyderabad. But the performance target could not be achieved because the research institute had not perfected the technology and cheated the company by making false representations. The institute moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court to quash the complaint. But it did not. Therefore, it appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that it was a civil dispute and arbitration proceedings were already pending. Quashing the proceedings, the judgment stated that it was not a criminal case as there was no dishonest intention and the high court should not have gone into the details of the complaint under its inherent jurisdiction.
Hamdard entitled to tax benefits
In the continuing legal battle between Hamdard Laboratories India and income tax authorities, the Delhi High Court reiterated that it was a charitable organisation entitled to exemptions and quashed the order of director general of income tax withdrawing Hamdard' s exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act with retrospective effect. The judgment further stated that Hamdard was entitled to refund of any amount collected by the revenue authorities with interest. The court also quashed reopening of assessment of earlier years. It, thus, allowed six writ petitions primarily concerning the charitable status of Hamdard. The organisation was not given an opportunity to explain its stand and therefore the authorities had violated the principle of natural justice, the judgment said.
