Miscellaneous

Sterlite Technologies Ltd. — (31-3-2010)

The Company had in an earlier year received an order of
CESTAT upholding the demand of Rs.188 crores (including penalties and excluding
interest) (Rs.188 crores as at March 31, 2009) in the pending excise/custom
matters on various grounds. The Company’s appeal with the Honourable High Court
of Mumbai was rejected on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Company preferred an
appeal with the Honourable Supreme Court of India against the order of CESTAT,
which has been admitted. The Company has reevaluated the case on admission of
appeal by the Supreme Court. Based on their appraisal of the matter, the legal
advisors/consultants are of the view that under the most likely event, the
provision of Rs.5 crores made by the Company against the above demand is
adequate. The management is confident of a favourable order and hence no further
provision is considered against the said demand.

As stated in Note No. 8 of Schedule 21, the Company had in an
earlier year received an order of CESTAT upholding a demand of Rs.188 crores
(including penalties and excluding interest) (Rs.188 crores as at March 31,
2009) in a pending excise/customs matter. The Company’s appeal against this
order with the Supreme Court has been admitted. Based on the current status and
legal advice received, provision for liability as recorded in the accompanying
financial statements is considered adequate by the management. In the event the
decision of the Supreme Court goes against the Company on any of the grounds of
appeal, additional provision against the said demand may be required. Pending
disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court, the amount of excise/customs duty
payable, if any, is currently unascertainable. Our audit report on the financial
statements for the year ended March 31, 2009 was qualified in respect of this
matter.

In our opinion and to the best of our information and
according to the explanations given to us, the said accounts give the
information required by the Companies Act, 1956, in the manner so required and
subject to the effect of the matter referred to in paragraph vi above give a
true and fair view in conformity with the accounting principles generally
accepted in India.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. — (31-12-2009)

On 16 September 2008, the Company received two warning
letters and an Import Alert from the United States of America (USA) FDA,
covering 30 generic drugs being manufactured at its Paonta Sahib and Dewas
manufacturing facilities in India. The issue raised in the warning letters
relate to ‘Current Good Manufacturing Practice’ being followed at the said
plants and does not in any way raise questions on product’s quality, safety or
effectiveness.

In 2008, consequent to Import Alert, the Company was not able
to sell the products covered under Import Alert, and accordingly, it had
recorded a

provision of Rs.2,631.11 million in that year, towards inventory, expected sales
return and related exports benefits.

On 25 February 2009, the Company received a letter from the
US FDA indicating that the Agency had invoked its Application Integrity Policy
(‘AIP’) against the Paonta Sahib facility (the ‘facility’). The management of
the Company believes that there was no falsification of data generated at the
facility and also believes that there is no indication of a pattern and practice
of submitting untrue statements of

material facts and there was no other improper conduct. Accordingly, the
Company, based on opinion from its legal council, believes that there is no

incremental present obligation existing at the balance sheet date on account of
these notices.

The Company continues to fully cooperate with the concerned
authorities for their final clearance, pending which there would be delays for
new

product approvals and sale of existing products in the United States of America.
During the current year, the Company has performed a re-assessment of the amount
of provisions created in 2008 and reversed a provision of Rs.937.81 million
which is included in unclaimed balances/excess provisions written back, which in
view of the Company is no longer required now.

In the year 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ), USA had
filed certain charges against the Company citing possible issues with the data
submitted by the Company, in support of product filing. The Company continues to
work diligently with the concerned authorities towards resolution of the issue.

Without qualifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 2
on Schedule 23 of the financial statements. Consequent to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of the United States of America import alerts and the FDA
letter dated 25 February 2009 imposing the Application Integrity Policy, the
Company had recorded provision of Rs.2,631.11 million during the year ended 31
December 2008 towards loss of inventory in hand, expected higher sales returns
and, expected reversal of export benefits. The basis and assumptions used by the
management in calculating these provisions were based on significant judgment
and estimates due to involvement of uncertainty, and actual result could have
been different from the management’s estimate.

6 Non-provision of diminution in Consolidated Financial
Statements (CFS) for fall in value of loan given by Joint Venture company to
ESOP Trust

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. — (31-3-2010)