B S Repoter / New Delhi May 12, 2008
The Supreme Court has held that an application to set aside an arbitration award could be heard by the court even if it is moved late provided there was sufficient ground to explain the delay. Normally there should not be a delay of more than four months. In two cases, Consolidated Engg Enterprises vs Principal Secretary and Hatti Gold Mines Company Ltd vs Vinay Heavy Equipment, the Karnataka High Court had taken a different view.
Therefore, the High Court ruling was set aside. In these cases, the aggrieved parties had moved the wrong courts to set aside the arbitration award. By the time the appropriate court was moved, there was a delay. The Supreme Court interpreted Section 14 of the Limitation Act and Sections 34 and 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in such a way that it helped the aggrieved parties and condoned the delay.
R & B Falcon not liable to pay fringe benefit tax in India: SC
The Supreme Court last week ruled that the Australian firm R & B Falcon, engaged in mobile offshore drilling rig and employing experts from different countries, was not liable to pay fringe benefit tax in India. The foreign firm gave free transport to employees from their countries to the workplace.
The Authority for Advanced Ruling had held that the foreign firm, which had done some work for ONGC in Indian offshore, was liable to pay the tax introduced three years ago. Giving a different interpretation to Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act dealing with fringe benefit tax, the Supreme Court said that free or subsidised transport or any such allowance provided by the employer to his employees for journeys by the employees from their residence to the place of work or such place of work to the place of residence could not be taxed.
SC dismisses appeal of Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd and upheld the ruling of the Customs tribunal in the dispute over the import of ceramic tiles.
The company maintained that it had imported unglazed tiles as it was freely importable and required no licence. However, the authorities stated that the goods in fact were glazed tiles. The samples were sent to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory for determination of the product. It reported that they were glazed tiles. Therefore the confiscation of the goods and penalty imposed by the authorities were upheld.