Excise Law - Valuation of Physician Samples – Appeal against Tribunal's order – Appellant contended that physician samples, prohibited from being sold under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, should not be subject to excise duty – Supreme Court held that excise duty is payable on manufactured goods whether or not they are sold, and the statutory prohibition on sale does not affect marketability for excise purposes – Physician samples are liable to excise duty, and their value should be assessed on a pro-rata basis. [Paras 1-42]

Marketability – Legal Interpretation – Analysis – Held – For excise duty to be levied, goods must be marketable, i.e., capable of being sold – Statutory prohibition on the sale of physician samples does not negate their marketability for excise purposes as they are produced for distribution – The twin test for excisability includes manufacture and capability of being sold. [Para 7-22]

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed; Pro-rata Valuation Upheld – Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, directing valuation of physician samples on a pro-rata basis – Remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reassessment accordingly – Other appeals dismissed. [Para 42]

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Application of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Appeals by two appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder committed as juveniles – Appellants were minors under 18 years at the time of offense – Supreme Court reviewed applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 to ongoing proceedings initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Held that proceedings should continue under the new Act, providing protections and benefits to the appellants as juveniles – Convictions upheld but sentences set aside as appellants have exceeded the maximum period provided under juvenile sentencing provisions. [Paras 1-20]

Determination of Juvenility – Relevance of age at the time of offense – Analysis – Held – Date of commission of the offense is the relevant date for determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Appellants, being under 18 at the time of the offense, are entitled to benefits under the Act – Sentences set aside as they exceeded the maximum period permissible under juvenile law, despite appellants now being over 40 years old. [Para 8-18]

Decision – Conviction Upheld; Sentences Set Aside – Supreme Court upholds the conviction of the appellants for the offense of murder – Orders their release considering the time already served exceeds the maximum period under juvenile law – Emphasizes the protective purpose of juvenile justice legislation and ensures fair application of the law to offenders who were minors at the time of the offense – Appeals partly allowed. [Para 19-20]

Criminal Law - Personal Appearance of Accused - General Directions by High Court – Criminal appeal challenging the High Court’s issuance of general directions under Article 227 of the Constitution and Sections 482 and 483 CrPC – Directions were aimed at simplifying and humanizing trial procedures, particularly for offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Supreme Court held that such general directions fettered the discretion of trial courts – Emphasized that the discretion under Sections 205 and 313 CrPC must be exercised on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature of the case and the conduct of the accused – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 1-17]

Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope and Limitations – Analysis – Held – Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution are to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct patent illegalities – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions that constrained the trial court’s discretion – Such directions not warranted in law. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; General Directions Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order containing general directions to criminal courts – Directed that the accused’s exemption from personal appearance granted by the High Court shall continue until the trial court disposes of the application under Section 205 CrPC. [Para 17]

Criminal Law - Rape and Kidnapping – Appeal against acquittal – The High Court acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 IPC on grounds of delayed FIR, age ambiguity of the prosecutrix, and lack of injuries – Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment cryptic and perfunctory, lacking proper consideration of crucial evidence – Conviction by trial court based on prosecutrix's reliable testimony reinstated. [Paras 1-29]

Evidence – Reliability of Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Analysis – Held – Testimony of a rape victim should not be viewed with suspicion; her evidence is akin to an injured witness and requires no corroboration unless found unreliable – Prosecutrix's consistent testimony, despite minor contradictions, held credible and sufficient for conviction – Delayed FIR explained satisfactorily by brother of prosecutrix. [Para 19-26]

Consent in Rape Cases – Legal Interpretation – Clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC not applicable as prosecutrix was above 16 years – Emphasis on voluntary participation without fear or misconception for valid consent under Section 375 IPC – Distinction between "against her will" and "without her consent" highlighted. [Para 13-18]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; High Court Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal judgment, reinstating the trial court’s conviction and sentencing – Respondent directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. [Para 29]

Service Law - Pay Parity – Appeal against High Court's decision – The High Court directed that the respondents (Senior Dietician and Dietician) under Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, be given pay scales at par with their counterparts in the Government of Punjab – Supreme Court considered the High Level Equivalence Committee's report which found significant differences in duties and responsibilities between the posts in the two administrations – Held that respondents are not entitled to the same pay scales as their counterparts in Punjab – Doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies only when employees are similarly situated with identical duties and responsibilities – High Court's decision set aside, and the Central Administrative Tribunal's order sustained. [Paras 1-8]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Legal Interpretation – Analysis – Held – Principle of equal pay for equal work requires wholesale identity in duties and responsibilities – Mere similarity in designation or nature of work is insufficient – Evaluation by expert body necessary in cases of disputed parity – High Court erred in equating posts based on respondent's pleadings without expert evaluation. [Para 7]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; High Court Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, denying pay parity – Respondents not entitled to pay scales equivalent to their counterparts in Punjab – No order as to costs. [Para 8]

Contract Law - Extra Work and Claims – Appeal against High Court’s judgment – Appellant-firm, engaged in construction, performed additional work under a contract with the State of Gujarat and claimed additional payment – High Court set aside trial court's decree favoring the appellant, citing clauses 8 and 10 of the agreement and final bill acceptance – Supreme Court held that acceptance of final bill "under protest" does not preclude genuine claims for additional work – Principles from relevant case law support contractor's right to claim extra payment despite final bill acceptance. [Paras 1-12]

Doctrine of Estoppel – Applicability in Construction Contracts – Analysis – Held – Contractor not estopped from claiming additional payment if final bill accepted under protest and additional work performed as per direction – Mere acceptance of final bill under protest does not amount to waiver of genuine claims. [Para 9]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; Trial Court Judgment Restored – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s decree awarding Rs. 227,758 to the appellant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization – No order as to costs. [Para 12]

Family Law - Mediation – Dispute between brothers – Supreme Court directs the parties to attempt resolution through mediation – Quotes Mahatma Gandhi's principles on resolving disputes outside of court – Emphasizes the role of lawyers in advising clients to seek mediation, especially in family and business disputes – Cites Section 89 CPC which encourages alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. [Paras 1-7]

Role of Lawyers in Dispute Resolution – Legal Guidance – Analysis – Held – Lawyers should guide clients towards mediation to prevent long, costly litigation – Encouraged by historical example from Mahatma Gandhi's practice as a lawyer, emphasizing resolution and unity over adversarial court battles. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Matter Referred to Mediation Centre – Supreme Court referred the matter to the Bangalore Mediation Centre, directing parties to appear for mediation and to report back to the court – Emphasized the potential for mediation to achieve a more amicable and satisfactory resolution. [Para 6-7]

Representing Advocates:

G.V. Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma, Anjana Chandrashekar for the Appellant

P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Vijay Kumar Pardesi, Mahesh Kumar, G.N. Reddy for the Respondent

Excise Law - Valuation of Physician Samples – Appeal against Tribunal's order – Appellant contended that physician samples, prohibited from being sold under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, should not be subject to excise duty – Supreme Court held that excise duty is payable on manufactured goods whether or not they are sold, and the statutory prohibition on sale does not affect marketability for excise purposes – Physician samples are liable to excise duty, and their value should be assessed on a pro-rata basis. [Paras 1-42]

Marketability – Legal Interpretation – Analysis – Held – For excise duty to be levied, goods must be marketable, i.e., capable of being sold – Statutory prohibition on the sale of physician samples does not negate their marketability for excise purposes as they are produced for distribution – The twin test for excisability includes manufacture and capability of being sold. [Para 7-22]

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed; Pro-rata Valuation Upheld – Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, directing valuation of physician samples on a pro-rata basis – Remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reassessment accordingly – Other appeals dismissed. [Para 42]

Taxation Law - Refund of Excess Tax Paid – Civil Appeal – KGST Act – CST Act – Article 265, 286 of the Constitution – Tax refund claim by non-dealer – Supreme Court dismisses appeal for refund by non-dealer on the basis of clear statutory provisions limiting refunds to dealers only – No proactive stance taken despite overpayment to avoid breach of statutory interpretation principles.

Taxation Law – Refund Claim Under KGST Act – Interpretation of Statutes – Section 44 of the KGST Act stipulates that only dealers are entitled to claim a refund for excess tax paid – Appellant, not being a dealer, is not entitled to a refund despite overpayment – Appeal dismissed based on unambiguous statutory language – Equity considerations and proactive interpretations deemed inapplicable in this context.

Exemption Under CST Act – Section 5(3) CST Act – Penultimate Sale – Export Transactions – Requirement of Agreement or Evidence – Claim for exemption under CST Act for penultimate sales denied in absence of agreement or evidence at the time of auction sale – Clear evidence of linkage to export necessary for exemption under Section 5(3) – Claim for refund also dismissed as no tax demand was made on appellant.

Decision:

Refund of Tax Paid to Seller – Appeal Dismissed – Court upholds findings of lower authorities that Section 44 of the KGST Act restricts refunds to dealers only – Despite recognizing overpayment, refund to non-dealer cannot be sanctioned due to clear statutory mandate – No interference warranted with factual findings of lower authorities.