Denel (Proprietary Limited) Vs. GOI, Ministry of Defence (SC) – Exercising its powers under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reiterated that right to appointment of an Arbitrator does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days as prescribed under Section 11(4) & 11(5) of the Act unless petition is filed for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act prior to appointment by opposite party. The SC appointed an independent Sole Arbitrator due to apprehensions of bias and impartiality, contrary to the clauses of the contract necessitating appointment of DGOF or government servant, as the Sole Arbitrator.
RPFC Vs. The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.(SC) – .The question which falls for consideration before this Court in this case is whether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’ ) is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’. The question was raised by the respondent before the High Court and both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have recorded a finding in favour of the respondent and held that the respondent being an ‘exempted establishment’ cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 14(B) of the Act.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE (SC) – The language of Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is clear that for availing concession from excise duty on excisable goods used in a specified industrial process, a person must obtain a registration certificate from the Collector and that “the concession shall, unless renewed by the Collector, cease on the expiry of the registration certificate”. Admittedly, the registration certificate of the appellant expired on 31.12.1995. Hence, the exemption granted under the notification ceased on 31.12.1995. The fresh registration certificate in favour of the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. was issued on 26.06.1996 and we find on a reading of the copy of the CT-2 certificate annexed as Annexure P5 that the registration certificate was not for any period prior to 26.06.1996. As the procedure laid down in Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Rules has not been complied with, the appellant is not entitled to avail the exemption of excise duty under the exemption notification during the period from 01.01.1996 to 25.06.1996.
Flex Engineering Limited Vs CCE (SC) – , If a product is not saleable, it will not be marketable and consequently the process of manufacture would not be held to be complete and duty of excise would not be leviable on it. The corollary to the above is that till the time the step of manufacture continues, all the goods used in relation to it will be considered as inputs and thus, entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. In the present case, as aforesaid, each machine is tailor made according to the requirements of individual customers. If the results are not in conformity with the order, then the machine loses its marketability and is of no use to any other customer. Thus, the process of manufacture will not be said to be complete till the time the machines meet the contractual specifications and that will not be possible unless the machines are subjected to individual testing.
CCE Vs M/S Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (SC) -Process of mixing polymers and additives with bitumen does not amount to manufacture. Both the lower authorities have found as a fact that the said process merely resulted in the improvement of quality of bitumen. Bitumen remained bitumen. There was no change in the characteristics or identity of bitumen and only its grade or quality was improved. The said process did not result in transformation of bitumen into a new product having a different identity, characteristic and use. The end use also remained the same, namely for mixing of aggregates for constructing the roads.
High Court was not justified in observing that since the been levied only against the owner of the vehicle and not against the person in-charge of the vehicle and, therefore, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. ACTO Vs. Romesh Power Products P. Ltd. (Supreme Court)
CCE Vs. Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court)- This Court has already held in the aforementioned decision that effect of making the registration certificate applicable from retrospective date under the trade mark law is based on the principle of deemed equivalence to public user of such mark whereas such deeming fiction cannot be extended to the excise law and that the same is only confined to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the assignment of the trade mark in question granted in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties was on 6.10.1998, which is subsequent to the date of registration of the case by the Department, which was done on 19.9.1998.
That section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Rule 6DD. This section must be read along with the Rule 6DD and if read together it is clear that the provisions of the section are not intended to restrict the business activities.
CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. & Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (SC) – On this issue, the Delhi High Court had held that the services rendered in relation to interconnection, port access did not involve any human interface and, therefore, the services could not be regarded as “technical services” as contemplated under section 194J. The expression “technical service” would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. It would not include any service provided by machines or robots. The Delhi High Court, therefore, concluded that interconnect charges/port access charges could not be regarded as fees for technical services, and hence, TDS provisions under section 194J were not attracted.
GRIDCO Limited & ANR. Vs. Sri Sadananda Doloi & Ors. (SC) – There has been a notable shift from the stated legal position settled in earlier decisions, that termination of a contractual employment in accordance with the terms of the contract was permissible and the employee could claim no protection against such termination even when one of the contracting parties happened to be the State. Remedy for a breach of a contractual condition was also by way of civil action for damages/compensation.
