Larger Bench
A larger Bench of the Supreme Court will decide an important issue whether welding electrodes are eligible for credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. In a batch of petitions, the companies led by Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise argued that the last year?s Supreme Court?s judgement in the Maruti Suzuki case gave a restricted meaning to the definition of ?inputs? to determine eligibility to Cenvat credit. While referring the issue to a larger Bench, the Court said: ??having regard to the language of Rule 2(g) of the 2002 Rules, and the analysis of the ? decisions, it appears that by employing the phrase ?and includes?, legislature did not intend to impart a restricted meaning to the definition of ?inputs? and therefore, the interpretation of the said term in Maruti Suzuki Ltd (supra), may require reconsideration by a larger bench.?
Both the Commissioner and the tribunal in 2007 had upheld the department?s order denying the Cenvat credit availed on welding electrodes by Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills.
Misconduct
If an employee is dismissed for misconduct, the burden of proof to show misconduct is always on the management, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Amar Chakravarty vs Maruti Suzuki India.
While reversing the labour and the Punjab & Haryana High Court?s orders, the apex court emphasised that a worker cannot be asked to prove that he had not committed any misconduct. ??when no enquiry is conducted before the service of a workman is terminated, the onus to prove that it was not possible to conduct the enquiry and that the termination was justified because of misconduct by the employee, lies on the management,? it said.
The management had, in November 2000, dismissed a workman for participating in a tool down strike and for raising derogatory and offensive slogans against the management.
Debt recovery
In the case of Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd (BSTL) vs Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd (IFCIL), the Supreme Court has stayed the auction proceedings initiated against the former under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act till the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) finally decided all the issues, including quantification of the dues. BSTL had taken a loan of Rs 55 crore from the PNB in 1973. A lock-out was declared in November 2008 and ultimately the High Court had upheld the BIFR?s winding up order in September this year.
BSTL, in May 2008, had entered into an agreement with Assets Care Enterprises Ltd (ACE), a third-party financier, whereby on payment of the balance amount of the one-time settlement by ACE to PNB, the dues of the bank stood completely settled. However, IFCIL, in 2009, had issued a notice demanding Rs 1,139.75 crore, which was refuted by BSTL. Subsequent to such refusal, IFCIL, in October 2009, had taken possession of the BSTL?s property at Ganaur, Haryana, and had issued a public notice inviting bids for the factory.
While DRAT had restrained IFCIL from going ahead with the sale notice, the Delhi High Court had allowed it to proceed with the auction but without finalising the bid. The apex court, on October 8, had revived DRAT?s order.
?indu.bhan@expressindia.com
