Excise benefit denied for use of combination brand names

The Supreme Court (SC) has set aside the order of the excise appellate tribunal which had granted duty benefits to Ace Auto Co Ltd, a small scale industry which supplied clutch plates and related items to Tata vehicles. On the cover assembly of the products manufactured by Ace Auto, it prefixed its symbol and logo with Tata. Ace Auto then claimed excise benefits granted to small scale units. It was denied by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. In the dispute, the tribunal ruled that the company was entitled to the benefit. However, the Supreme Court stated that in order to avail of the exemption notification of October 2002, the SSI manufacturer must prove that its product was not associated with another person. If it is shown that the manufacturer has affixed the brand name of another person on its goods with the intention of a connection between their products, the benefit would not be available to the SSI. However, if the assessee company is able to prove there was no such intention or that the use of the brand name was entirely fortuitous, it would be entitled to the benefit of exemption, the SC clarified.

Duty benefit grant to firm quashed
The SC has quashed the order of the customs appellate tribunal granting duty benefit to Jocil Ltd, which imported non-edible industrial grade crude palm stearin through Kakinada port. Owing to a dispute over the nature of the cargo, it was referred to the chemical examiner in Visakhapatnam who said that it contained palm fatty acid distillate and not crude palm stearin as declared by the importer. The commissioner imposed a higher duty. On appeal, the tribunal set aside the order on the ground that the chemical examiner’s finding was not conclusive on all points. The SC referred to the eight-digit first schedule introduced by an ordinance in 2003 which clarified the issue and allowed the appeal of the revenue authorities.

‘Proceedings of mediation and conciliation are confidential’
The proceedings of mediation and conciliation are totally confidential and the contents should not be disclosed even in the final order, the SC stated in the case, Moti Ram vs Ashok Kumar. If the mediation succeeds or fails, the report should be brief and should not discuss the proposals from each side. Mediation proceedings are different from court proceedings which are open to the public. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the mediator should only write one sentence in his report and send it to the court stating so. “Beyond that, the mediator should not write anything which was discussed, proposed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process,” the SC said. It also ordered that a copy of this judgment should be sent to all courts.

Order of registrar of newspapers quashed
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order of the Registrar of Newspapers (RNI) which made it compulsory for verification of the circulation data of the newspapers by independent private chartered accountant firms in the panel of the RNI. This order, in 2007, was held to be violative of the Press and Registration of Books Act (PRB Act). The RNI order, apart from making provision for verification of circulation figures provided by the publishers from their own panel auditors, also framed guidelines regarding payment of fees and reimbursement of expenses of the empanelled auditors.

Their fees and expenses were to be reimbursed by the concerned newspapers. The high court order was passed on a petition moved by the Indian Languages Newspapers Association.

The judgment said that only the Press Registrar or any gazetted officer authorised by the Press Registrar, is allowed to enter and collect the information on circulation. It did not permit any private party to be authorised by the Press Registrar to do the job. “Outsourcing of the work of circulation audit of newspapers to private chartered accountant firms would be in violation of Section 19-I of the PRB Act,” the judgment said.