Contract Labour – Reinstatement and Absorption – Contract labourers claimed direct employment with the appellant, asserting the contract was sham – Industrial Tribunal and High Court ordered reinstatement and absorption without notification under Section 10 of CLRA Act – Supreme Court held that without such notification and evidence proving the contract was sham, reinstatement and absorption were erroneous – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-5].

Contract Labour – Automatic Absorption – No provision under Section 10 of CLRA Act for automatic absorption – Employment relationship to be determined based on control over employment conditions, salary payment, and disciplinary power – Industrial adjudicator to decide if contract is sham, lacking such findings, reinstatement erroneous [Paras 3-4].

Applicable Laws – Conflict of Laws – CLRA Act provisions prevail over inconsistent state laws – Industrial adjudicator must apply CLRA Act criteria for determining employer-employee relationship, not state-specific industrial laws [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Civil Appeals allowed – High Court and Industrial Tribunal judgments set aside – Labour Court judgment restored, denying reinstatement and absorption under the CLRA Act [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Summoning Additional Accused – Trial court's power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised before pronouncement of the order of sentence in case of conviction or before the order of acquittal – Summoning order must precede trial conclusion – If summoning order is passed after acquittal or sentence imposition, it is not sustainable [Paras 1-88].

Power Under Section 319 CrPC – Summoning additional accused during bifurcated trials of absconding accused – Power valid if based on evidence in split trial pointing to involvement – Main trial evidence cannot justify summoning if power not exercised during main trial [Paras 2-7].

Guidelines for Exercising Power Under Section 319 CrPC – Courts must pause trial upon finding evidence or application under Section 319 CrPC before acquittal or sentence order – Summoning decision must precede further trial steps – Courts must decide on joint or separate trial for summoned accused – Fresh or de novo trial necessary if joint trial decided – Summoning power in bifurcated cases requires fresh evidence in split trial [Paras 8-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders summoning additional accused after trial conclusion not sustainable – Summoning orders to be made before acquittal or sentence pronouncement in ongoing trials [Paras 34-35].

Excise Duty – Valuation of Goods – Dispute centered on the method of determining the value of goods for excise duty when sales were made to both independent and related parties – Revenue issued show cause notice invoking Section 4(1)(b) of CEA and Rule 11 of CEVR – CESTAT set aside notice, directing reliance on CBEC Circular of 01.07.2002, which mandates Rule 11 read with Rule 9 or 10 of CEVR [Paras 1-42].

Binding Nature of Circulars – CBEC Circular of 01.07.2002 is binding on the Revenue – Revenue must adhere to its own administrative directions for uniform application of tax laws – Courts and Tribunals are to interpret statutes independently, but the Circular cannot be ignored if consistent with statutory provisions [Paras 15-19].

Valuation Principles – Sales to independent buyers should be used as a benchmark for sales to related parties if no specific methodology is available – Transaction value to independent parties serves as the 'normal price' under Section 4(1)(a) of CEA – Rule 11 of CEVR mandates reasonable means for valuation, consistent with Section 4(1) principles [Paras 20-37].

Extended Limitation Period – Extended period of limitation under CEA applies if there is suppression of facts – However, due to Revenue’s unclear valuation method, only excise duty, not interest and penalties, should be levied on the Respondent [Paras 38].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Value of goods sold to related parties to be determined based on prices to independent parties – Demand confirmed but interest and penalties not approved – Circular dated 01.07.2002 held consistent with CEA and CEVR [Paras 39-42].

Criminal Law – Bail in Tax Evasion Case – Petitioner accused of evading tax by transporting 90520 kgs of unmanufactured tobacco, allegedly for clandestine zarda manufacturing – High Court rejected bail application under Section 439 CrPC – Supreme Court granted bail, noting petitioner’s four-month incarceration, documentary and electronic nature of evidence, and low risk of tampering [Paras 1-7].

Tax Evasion – Allegations and Evidence – Allegations included transport of raw tobacco from Gujarat to Delhi for unaccounted zarda production – Respondent claimed tax evasion amounting to Rs. 155728345, based on projected zarda production – Petitioner disputed the quantum, asserting a tax liability of Rs. 19326020 based on actual transported quantity – Supreme Court emphasized these contentions would be addressed during trial [Paras 3-6].

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner directed to comply with trial court conditions, including passport deposit – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of diligent trial participation and adherence to imposed conditions to prevent tampering [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Special Leave Petition allowed – Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on bail, subject to trial court conditions, including passport deposit and regular trial participation [Para 7-9].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – High Court declared acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court holds High Court erred, citing Indore Development Authority case – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-3].

Litigation Impact – Acquisition proceedings subject to prolonged litigation – Authority could not take possession due to pending legal challenges – Non-taking of possession not to benefit landowners in such context [Para 2.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Acquisition proceedings upheld [Para 3].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – High Court declared acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court holds High Court erred, citing Indore Development Authority case – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-7].

Litigation Impact – Acquisition proceedings subject to prolonged litigation – Authority could not take possession due to pending legal challenges – Non-taking of possession not to benefit landowners in such context [Para 6.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Acquisition proceedings upheld [Para 7].

Tax Law – Concessional Rate of Tax – High Court granted concessional tax rate of 2% for oxygen gas used in steel manufacturing by Tata Steel, treating it as raw material – Supreme Court held that oxygen gas is a refining agent and not a raw material – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-12].

Expert Committee Findings – Detailed inspection report by six-member expert committee found oxygen gas to be a refining agent in steel manufacturing – High Court erred in interfering with these findings under Article 226 [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Assessment order by assessing officer reinstated [Para 12].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – High Court's order declaring the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-tendering of compensation to the original writ petitioner – Supreme Court holds that the High Court erred in its reliance on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation case – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-3].

Subsequent Purchaser – Locus Standi – High Court erred in entertaining writ petition by a subsequent purchaser challenging acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act – Supreme Court clarifies such claims are not maintainable [Para 2.1].

Compensation and Possession – Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority case clarifies that if either possession is taken or compensation paid, there is no lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – High Court's reliance on the lack of compensation payment alone is incorrect [Para 2.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Acquisition proceedings upheld [Para 3].

Anticipatory Bail – ISRO Spy Case – High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondents without considering the allegations, roles, or recommendations by Justice D.K. Jain Committee – Supreme Court quashes High Court’s order – Cases remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1-9].

Role and Allegations – High Court failed to assess the specific roles and positions held by the accused at the time of the original investigation and the nature of allegations – Required fresh evaluation by the High Court [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Recommendations – High Court ignored the recommendations of the Committee headed by Justice D.K. Jain – New FIR registered based on these recommendations – Necessity to consider these factors in bail decisions [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment granting anticipatory bail quashed – Matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law [Para 7].