#Section 11A

Supreme Court ruled the Central Excise Department cannot invoke the proviso to Section 11A to reopen assessments without a specific allegation of wilful suppression of valuation. The decision curtails the department’s ability to extend the limitation period, shielding job-work vehicle manufacturers from retrospective tax claims.

CESTAT Chennai remands excise appeals dismissed as time-barred, ruling that the department must prove service of orders before the limitation period begins. Fresh adjudication ordered within 90 days, reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness in excise proceedings.

Karnataka High Court affirms that compensation under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act can be awarded even for unintentional absenteeism, prioritizing equitable relief over reinstatement. The ruling underscores courts' discretion to balance employer discipline with employee rights, setting a precedent for similar disputes.

Bombay HC rules that prolonged absence due to judicial custody does not automatically negate willful misconduct under the Industrial Disputes Act. Employers must prove the employee was aware of service rules and deliberately avoided compliance, even during incarceration. The ruling mandates reinstatement proceedings before the Labour Court to assess evidence of willfulness and communication.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that an Industrial Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to modify a minor disciplinary punishment unless there is proof of perversity or victimization. The judgment reinforces managerial autonomy in service discipline, limiting tribunal interference to cases of proven injustice.

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that Labour Courts cannot independently allow employers to introduce fresh evidence after declaring a domestic enquiry invalid. The right to submit new evidence must be affirmatively claimed in the written statement, reinforcing procedural discipline and preventing tactical delays in industrial disputes.