A manufacturer of products like neem facial pack, anti-pimple herbal powder, etc, preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Customs Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to classify the products as ‘cosmetics’, which attract a high rate of Central excise duty, and not as ‘medicaments’, which attract no duty. The manufacturer contended that the products were manufactured according to Ayurvedic Pharmacopia and had curative value, unlike cosmetics which, according to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are used for enhancing attractiveness or altering one’s appearance. The court held that simply because the products enhanced appearance, they could not be classified as cosmetics (M/S Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Central Excise Nagpur).
In an assault and attempt to murder case, the accused sought the quashing of a lower court’s order issuing summons to the accused for facing trial, on the ground that the case was filed in a district where the incident didn’t occur. Relying on the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Patna High Court held that no sentence order of a lower court in a particular area should be set aside because the crime occurred elsewhere unless there was some miscarriage of justice. The petition was dismissed (Kunti Devi and others vs State of Bihar and another).
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the directors of the company in a case where a cheque had been dishonoured. Two of the directors pleaded for quashing of proceedings as they were not involved in the company’s day-to-day affairs and were also not signatories to the cheque. They were proceeded against as they had not replied to the statutory notice. Quashing the proceedings against them, the Bombay High Court held a person could not be prosecuted merely because he happened to be a director of the company, or because he had not replied to a statutory notice. The court further said that only those responsible for conducting the business could be prosecuted in such cases (Shishir B. Desai Vs Ceat Financial Services).
SOLON