Parle Bisleri
Dismissing the Parle Bisleri Ltd?s plea (formerly known as M/s Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd) in a dispute over its soft drink flavours and the use of brand names, the Supreme Court has upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruling that denied excise benefits claimed by the manufacturer of soft drink flavours and two other companies?Parle Exports Ltd (PEL) and Parle International Ltd (PIL). The tribunal had rejected Parle Bisleri?s claim for excise benefits as a small scale industry during 1989-90 to 1993-94 as its clearances must be clubbed with those of PEL and PIL?they were effectively the same company as the financial control and management emanated from a common core. The apex court accepted the tribunal?s view and said: ?The three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management? It would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer disputed questions.?
Labour disputes
The Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs GM, Instrument Design Development Centre has stated that a labour court should consider any dispute referred by a state government, which is satisfied that there is a dispute, under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. As the Act does not prescribe any time limit for referring a dispute to the labour court, the test is whether a dispute existed, not when it was referred. In this case, Kuldeep, a data entry operator, was terminated without notice or compensation in 1992. He moved the Haryana government, which referred the dispute to the labour court. But the labour court dismissed the worker?s petition on the grounds that he moved the government after more than 5.5 years of his termination. While the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the labour court?s view, the Supreme Court allowed the government to refer the dispute.
Consumer protection
Goods and services hired for commercial purposes cannot be the subject matter of a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Birla Technologies vs Neutral Glass and Allied Industries. Setting aside the judgement of the National Consumer Commission that held that the complaint filed by Neutral Glass was tenable relating to deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended by the Amendment Act 2002, the apex court said that the complaint was not maintainable as the goods and services were purchased for commercial purpose of earning profits.Neutral Glass had moved the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2003 against Birla, which developed software for it. While the state forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant was not a ?consumer?, the National Commission reversed the order saying the complaint with respect to the deficiency in service was made during the warranty period.
