advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, October 28, 2016

“Indirect Taxation”=Section 3-B undoubtedly commences with a non-obstante clause, but the provision has to be read harmoniously with sub-section (6) to Section 4-B. Any other interpretation would make sub-section (6) a dead letter, for if we accept the plea of the Revenue whenever there is violation or failure to abide with the “intendment”, Section 3-B would be invoked and applied, not sub-section(6) to Section 4-B. Section 3-B would apply when a false and wrong certificate or declaration is made. Sub-section (6) on the other hand, deals with cases where the dealer is unable to comply with the intendment, i.e., for some reason he is unable to sell the goods within the State, export them or sell them in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Intendment of the said nature has not been treated as false or wrong declaration as consequences have been prescribed in sub-section (6). It is essential to be stated that consistency and certainty in tax matters is necessary. In cases relating to “Indirect Taxation”, this principle is even more important. Clarity in this regard is a necessity and the interpretative vision should be same.

                                 REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10430 OF 2016
                    (@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28962 of 2013)



Commissioner of Commercial Tax,   U.P.          …Appellant

                                   Versus

M/s Oswal Greentech Limited                        …Respondent



                               J U D G M E N T


Dipak Misra, J.

      Leave granted.
2.    The respondent, a dealer registered under  Section  8-A  of  the  U.P.
Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, “the Act”), is a holder of  a  recognition
certificate as per provisions contained in Section  4-B  of  the  Act.   The
respondent used to make purchases of raw material at the  concessional  rate
of tax against Form III-B obtained by it from the office of  the  Trade  Tax
Officer. As per conditions prescribed under Section 4-B(2) of the  Act,  the
notified goods  manufactured  out  of  the  raw  material  produced  at  the
concessional rate of tax against Form III-B is required to be sold  by  such
manufacturer in the  State  or  in  the  course  of  inter-State  trade  and
commerce or in the course of export out of India.  It is  also  provided  in
the said Section that  if  a  recognition  certificate  holder  sells  goods
manufactured by it out of the raw material  purchased  at  the  concessional
rate of tax against Form III-B in a manner otherwise than  prescribed  under
Section 4-B(2), the said dealer shall be liable to  penal  action  equal  to
three times of the tax, thus saved by  the  said  dealer  on  purchase  made
against Form III-B.
3.    At the time of scrutiny, the  assessing  authority  noticed  that  the
respondent had made purchases of natural  gas  against  Form  III-B  at  the
concessional rate of tax, and after manufacture of the notified goods,  that
is, fertilizers, out of the said purchases of natural gas purchased  against
Form III-B, some of the finished goods were transferred  outside  the  State
of Uttar Pradesh.  The Revenue issued show cause notice  to  the  respondent
for the assessment  year  2005-06  and  after  considering  the  explanation
offered, imposed penalty of Rs.10,46.98,335/- vide order  dated  28.03.2009.
 Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 9 of  the
Act before the Joint  Commissioner  (Appeals)-1,  Commercial  Tax,  Bareilly
being Appeal No. 798 of 2009, and the appellate  authority  vide  its  order
dated 12.11.2009 dismissed  the  appeal  and  confirmed  the  order  of  the
assessing authority dated 28.03.2009 passed under Section 3-B of the Act.
4.    The dismissal of appeal constrained the respondent to  file  a  second
appeal (Appeal No. 237 of 2009) before the Tribunal, Trade  Tax,  U.P.  (for
short, “tribunal”).  Since there was difference of opinion in  the  Division
Bench of the tribunal,  the  case  was  referred  to  the  Chairman  of  the
tribunal who  nominated  another  Judicial  Member  for  his  opinion.   The
learned Judicial Member gave his opinion in favour  of  the  respondent.  On
the basis of the opinion expressed by the  nominated  Judicial  Member,  the
appeal stood allowed as a consequence of which the  order  imposing  penalty
was annulled.
5.    Being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the Revenue filed  Trade
Tax Revision No. 579 of 2011 under Section 11 of the  Act  before  the  High
Court.  The question of law that arose for  consideration  before  the  High
Court was as follows:-
“Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the  Commercial  Tax
Tribunal were legally justified in granting the  exemption  on  purchase  of
raw material against  Form  III-B  whereas  the  dealer  has  made  a  stock
transfer of finished goods which is not permissible under  law?”

6.    The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the tribunal   had
relied on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in Camphor and  Allied
Products Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.[1] and on that basis had come  to  the
conclusion that the assessee had purchased  the  material  and  used  it  in
manufacture and there was no  violation  of  Section  3-B  of  the  Act  and
accordingly concurred with the view of the tribunal as  a  result  of  which
the revision stood dismissed.
7.    We have heard Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal and  Mr.  Rajeev  Dubey,  learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi for the respondent.
8.    It is profitable to refer to the findings recorded  by  the  assessing
officer.  It has been held by him that under Section 3-B and 4-B(2)  of  the
Act, the finished product manufactured from the raw material purchased at  a
concessional rate can only be sold in U.P. or in the course  of  inter-State
trade and commerce or can be exported out of country, but stock transfer  is
not permissible.   According  to  the  assessing  officer,  the  trader  had
purchased natural gas at a concessional rate against  Form  III-B  i.e.  20%
minus 15% = 5%, availing the benefit at the rate of 15% and  paying  tax  at
the rate of 5%.  The production of urea has been done by using  the  natural
gas obtained at a concessional rate and the manufactured product,  that  is,
urea has been sent by way of stock  transfer  outside  the  State  in  clear
violation of Section 3-B and 4-B(2) of the Act.  It has been further  opined
by him that the assessee had acted contrary  to  the  provision  of  law  by
purchasing raw material at a concessional rate and  thereafter  sending  the
finished goods as stock transfer outside  the  State  which  does  not  come
under the term ‘sale’ and no revenue is generated by the State.   Proceeding
further, the assessing officer has held thus:-
“The trader without acting under the provisions of the Section 3B and  4B(2)
of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act,  had  caused  loss  of  revenue  to  the
State.  The State had lost revenue at the rate of 15%  on  the  purchase  of
raw material used in the produced goods sent as stock transfer, which  could
have received had these were not purchased against  Form  3B.   Because  the
tax has been paid at the rate of 5% against form 3B.   Had  the  trader  not
declared false declaration against  Form  3B,  and  had  acted  as  per  the
provision of Section 4B(2), then the State Government could have got 20%  as
Tax and 1% as development tax totaling 21%.  The local purchase  of  natural
gas could have been made without form 3B.  But  the  trader  had  not  acted
under the provisions of Section 3B. The trader had not  also  acted  u/s  4B
(2) which he had declared to act when taking the forms 3B.  Hence,  the  raw
material  purchased  at  a  concessional   rate   were   utilized   in   the
manufacturing of the  notified  finished  product  (Urea),  but  instead  of
making any sale (within and outside the State) and without  exporting  those
outside the country, had made stock transfers, thereby had violated  Section
4B(2) of the Act.  By making false  declaration  u/s  3B  of  the  Act,  the
trader had only deposited tax on the  purchase  of  raw  material   (Natural
Gas) at the rate of 5% only and availed the benefit of 15%.   On  the  other
hand without taking any action u/s  4B  (2)  of  the  Act,  had  made  stock
transfer outside the State, as a result of which had saved tax @ 7.5%  apart
from the development tax on Urea.  As such the trader was able to evade  tax
@ 22.5% in an illegal manner and thereby had caused double loss  of  revenue
to the State.”

9.    The appellate authority, as the order  would  reflect,  has  expressed
the view that the assessee, after availing the benefit at  the  concessional
rate, has violated the provisions contained in Section 4B(2) of the Act  and
has been making stock transfers quite often.  The  appellate  authority  has
opined that the principle stated in the authorities in  Camphor  and  Allied
Products Ltd. (supra), Bareilly v.  State  of  U.P.[2],  CTT  v.  Manoharlal
Heeralal Pvt. Ltd.[3] are different and not applicable to the facts  of  the
case.
10.   The opinion of the tribunal, as  expressed  by  the  judicial  member,
which is the final view of the tribunal, is that the trader  was  authorized
to purchase  the  natural  gas  for  the  manufacture  of  urea  and  it  is
undisputed that it had  manufactured  urea  by  utilizing  the  natural  gas
purchased against the issue of Form III-B.  He has proceeded to  state  that
no action can be taken under Section 3-B on the  ground  that  the  products
utilizing the natural gas purchased against the issue  of  Form  III-B  were
sent through stock transfer without selling those directly, because  Section
4-B of the Act cannot be extended  to  determine  the  responsibility  under
Section 3-B.  The judicial member has arrived at the said conclusion on  the
foundation that Section 4-B has nothing to do with the  fact  that  how  the
notified goods are to be disposed of because the provision  of  Section  3-B
is not applicable in case the raw material is used  for  production  of  the
notified goods  mentioned  in  the  recognition  certificate.   The  learned
member has expressed the view that  the  decisions  in  Camphor  and  Allied
Products Ltd. (supra) and Bareilly (supra)  are  fully  applicable  and  the
case of the assessee is covered by the principles stated therein.   He  also
took note of the fact that the decisions  in  Camphor  and  Allied  Products
Ltd. (supra), Bareilly (supra) and Manoharlal  Heeralal   (supra)  have  not
been assailed before the Supreme Court  and,  therefore,  they  are  binding
precedents in the field.  Eventually, the learned member came to hold thus:-

“In the present case it is established that the trader had utilized  natural
gas purchased against the Form 3B in  the  production  of  the  ‘Urea’.   As
such, in my opinion, proceeding  u/s  3B  should  not  have  been  initiated
against the trader.  The order  which  has  been  passed  by  the  assessing
officer u/s 3B of the  Act  and  which  has  been  confirmed  by  the  first
appellate court, are not justified.”

11.   To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective and to  scrutinize
the analysis of the departmental authorities on one hand  and  the  tribunal
and the High Court on the other, it  is  necessary  to  scan  the  statutory
scheme and its real import.  Section 3-B of the Act reads as follows:-

"Section 3-B. Liability on issuing false  certificate,  etc.-Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary  contained  elsewhere  in  this  Act,  and  without
prejudice to the provisions of Sections 14 and 15-A, a person, who issues  a
false or wrong certificate or declaration, prescribed  under  any  provision
of this Act or the Rules framed thereunder, to another person by  reason  of
which a tax leviable under this Act on the transaction of purchase  or  sale
made with or by such other person ceases to be leviable or becomes  leviable
at a concessional rate, shall be  liable  to  pay  on  such  transaction  an
amount which would have been payable as tax on  such  transaction  had  such
certificate or declaration not been issued :


Provided that before taking  any  action  under  this  section,  the  person
concerned shall be given an opportunity of being heard.

Explanation.-Where a person issuing a certificate or  declaration  discloses
therein his intention to use the goods purchased by him for such purpose  as
will make the tax not leviable or leviable at a concessional rate  but  uses
the same  for  a  purpose  other  than  such  purpose,  the  certificate  or
declaration shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be wrong."
                                                         [Emphasis supplied]

12.   Section 4-B(2) and 4-B(6)  of  the  Act  which  are  relevant  to  the
controversy at hand and further  on  which  the  Revenue  has  laid  immense
emphasis are extracted hereunder:-

“(2)  Where a dealer requires any goods, referred to in sub-section (1)  for
use in the manufacture by him, in the State of any  notified  goods,  or  in
the packing of such notified goods manufactured or  processed  by  him,  and
such notified goods are intended to be sold by him in the State  or  in  the
course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of  export  out  of
India, he may apply to the assessing authority in such form and  manner  and
within such period as may be prescribed, for  the  grant  of  a  recognition
certificate  in  respect  thereof,  and  if  the  applicant  satisfies  such
requirements including requirement of depositing late fee and conditions  as
may be prescribed, the assessing authority shall grant to him in respect  of
such goods a recognition certificate  in  such  form  and  subject  to  such
conditions, as may be prescribed.


Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section,-(a)  goods  required  for
use in the manufacture  shall  mean  raw  materials,  processing  materials,
machinery, plant, equipment, consumable stores,  spare  parts,  accessories,
components, sub-assemblies, fuels or lubricants ; and


(b)   ‘notified goods’ means such goods  as  may,  from  time  to  time,  be
notified by the State Government in that behalf.


                              xxxx        xxxxx


(6) Where a dealer in  whose  favour  a  recognition  certificate  has  been
granted under sub-section (2) has purchased any goods after payment  of  tax
at concessional rate under this section, or as  the  case  may  be,  without
payment of tax and the goods manufactured  out  of  such  raw  materials  or
processing materials or manufactured goods  after  being  packed  with  such
packing material are sold or disposed of otherwise than by way  of  sale  in
the State or in the course of  inter-State  trade  or  commerce  or  in  the
course of export out of the territory of India, such dealer shall be  liable
to pay an amount equal to the difference between the amount of  tax  on  the
sale or purchase of such goods payable under this section and the amount  of
tax calculated at the rate of four per cent, on  the  sale  or  purchase  of
such goods."


13.   It is submitted by Mr. Agrawal,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant
that recognition certificate is granted where a dealer uses the  goods  (raw
material) in the manufacture of notified goods by him in  the  State  or  in
the course of inter-State trade and commerce or  in  the  course  of  export
outside India and the fulfillment of aforesaid  two  conditions  is  a  pre-
requisite for claiming exemption, but in the  case  at  hand,  the  assessee
though has purchased the goods at concessional rate by furnishing Form  III-
B under Rule 25-B(1) has engaged itself in stock  transfer  and,  therefore,
the penal provisions gets fully attracted.  Relying on  sub-section  (6)  of
Section 4-B, it is urged by him as no differential tax has been paid by  the
assessee, certificate in Form III-B continues to  be  a  false  or  a  wrong
certificate as  regards  the  purchase  of  natural  gas  and  used  in  the
manufacture of urea, hence the penalty has been  correctly  levied.   It  is
his further submission that decision in Camphor  and  Allied  Products  Ltd.
(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, for in the  said
case the camphor manufactured by the assessee  was  transferred  by  way  of
stock transfer outside the State of U.P. on which the differential  tax  was
paid in accordance with Section 4-B(6) of the Act, but in the present  case,
no differential tax has been paid by the respondent, and such  violation  as
a natural corollary leads to the inevitable conclusion that the  certificate
in Form III-B continues to be a false or wrong certificate.  Lastly,  it  is
contended by him  that  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  has  not
correctly laid down the law in Camphor  and  Allied  Products  Ltd.  (supra)
inasmuch as  it  has  confined  its  consideration  to  the  first  part  of
condition enshrined under  Section  4-B(2)  of  the  Act,  whether  the  raw
material has been used in the manufacture or not,  but  has  not  considered
the second part, that is, the goods had  been  sold  intra-State  or  inter-
State or exported out of India.
14.   Mr. Tyagi,  learned  counsel  for  the  assessee,  per  contra,  would
contend that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture and  sale
of fertilizer and as per the recognition  certificate,  it  is  entitled  to
procure natural gas at a concessional rate and the respondent  has  procured
natural gas from two sources (1) from GAIL at a  concessional  rate  against
Form III-B and (2) from outside the State  from  BPCL/GAIL  at  normal  tax.
Learned counsel would submit that the respondent has  disposed  of  urea  by
local sale and has also transferred the stock to various States  which  have
been pursuant to  and  in  compliance  of  Movement  Orders  issued  by  the
Government of India from time  to  time.   He  has  referred  to  directions
issued by the Ministry of  Chemicals  &  Fertilizers  under  the  Fertilizer
(Movement Control) Order, 1973.   It  is  urged  by  him  that  as  per  the
Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973 unless  the  Government  of  India
authorizes a manufacturer to make stock transfer of  a  particular  quantity
of urea in a particular month, no urea  can  be  transferred/sold  from  one
State to another.  Learned counsel would put  forth  that  the  State  never
disputed the  stock  transfers  made  under  Fertilizer  (Movement  Control)
Order, 1973.  Learned counsel would further propone that show  cause  notice
was issued under Section 3-B for alleged violation  of  Form  III-B  and  it
cannot change the foundation to raise a fresh plea under Section  4-B(6)  of
the Act.  It is further  urged  by  Mr.  Tyagi  that  the  pronouncement  in
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd.  (supra)  is  absolutely  correct  and,  in
fact, it has been holding the field for considerable length of time  as  far
as the State of U.P. is concerned.  To substantiate the contentions  he  has
raised, he has placed reliance on CCE v. Gas Authority of India Ltd.[4]  and
SACI  Allied  Products  Ltd.  v.  CCE,  Meerut[5].   Though  Mr.  Tyagi  has
contended with regard to limitation in exercise of  revisional  jurisdiction
and the bar on the part of revenue  to  accept  the  judgment  on  the  same
question in the case of one assessee and question  its  correctness  in  the
case of another assessee and in  support  of  the  same  has  cited  certain
authorities, we need not enter into the said arena, for what  we  are  going
to hold.
15.   In Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. (supra) the High Court  took  note
of the fact that the RFO and furnace oil was purchased  against  Form  III-B
and the same was  used  in  the  manufacture  of  camphor  and  other  goods
mentioned in the recognition certificate granted under Section  4-B  of  the
Act.   It took note of the two earlier decisions in  Commissioner  of  Trade
Tax v. Spox India and Allied Industries[6] and Arora Steel Udyog (P) Ltd.  v
Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.[7] and quoted  a  passage  from  the  latter
authority, which is to the following effect:-
"It is well-settled that proceedings under Section 3-B  shall  be  initiated
only when the assessee issues a false or wrong  certificate  or  declaration
provided under  any  of  the  provisions  under  the  Act  or  Rules  framed
thereunder. This view has been  constantly  taken  by  this  Court  in Sahni
Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales  Tax 1994  UPTC  70, Commissioner
of Sales Tax v. B.K. & Co. Engineering Works, Agra 1995  UPTC  502  and S.G.
Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1998] 108 STC 328; 1997  UPTC  616  of
this Court. Therefore, unless it was shown that the  form  III-B  issued  by
the revisionist were false or wrong, or the declarations  made  therein  was
false or wrong, no proceedings under Section 3-B of the Act could have  been
initiated. It is also not the case of the department that the  assessee  did
not use the goods purchased by him  for  the  purpose  for  which  exemption
certificate was granted to him. Therefore, the assessee cannot be deemed  to
have issued a wrong certificate."

      It also took note of the decision relied upon by the Revenue  in  Puri
Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax[8], which took a different view  and
thereafter came to hold as follows:-
“28. The  petitioner  purchased  RFO/furnace  oil  against  form  III-B  for
manufacture  of  its  final  product,  namely,  camphor  and  other   allied
products. Section 3-B clearly shows that it is the user of the  goods  which
is relevant for the purpose for which form III-B was given and not  how  the
finished product or manufactured goods are sold. Admittedly form  III-B  was
issued for use in manufacture of  camphor  and  other  allied  products  and
RFO/furnace oil for which the recognition certificate was granted. Hence  in
our opinion the petitioner cannot be deemed to  have  issued  any  wrong  or
false certificate and tax cannot be  legally  charged  under Section  3-B of
the Act.

                                 xxxxx xxxxx

31. In the present case RFO and furnace oil have  admittedly  been  used  in
the manufacture  of  camphor  and  allied  products  for  which  recognition
certificate was granted. Hence it cannot be deemed that the  petitioner  has
issued any wrong or false certificate. It is evident  from  the  facts  that
the petitioner has not issued any wrong or false certificate or  declaration
in form III-B inasmuch as both RFO and furnace oil have been  used  for  the
same purpose,  namely,  in  the  process  of  manufacture  of  goods,  i.e.,
camphor, and another allied products.”

16.   We have already analysed the statutory scheme and what has been  dwelt
with by the High Court in Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. (supra) and  what
has been pressed into service by Mr. Tyagi.  Presently, text and context  in
detail.  Section  4-B(2)  is  applicable  to  the  dealer  who  manufactures
notified goods in the State or engaged in packaging of such  notified  goods
manufactured or processed  by  him.   The  said  dealer  can  apply  to  the
assessing authority in such form, manner and within the time prescribed  for
grant of the recognition certificate.  The  assessing  authority  can  grant
the recognition certificate to the dealer in respect of goods  used  in  the
manufacture of  the  notified  goods  or  packing  of  the  notified  Goods.
Explanation to the sub-section defines the  word  “Goods”  which  means  raw
materials, processing material, machinery, spare parts and also fuels.   The
expression “Notified Goods” means  such  goods  as  notified  by  the  State
government from time to time.
17.   Sub-section (2) to Section 4-B also requires that the  notified  goods
should be “intended” to be sold by the dealer within the  State  or  in  the
course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of exports  out  of
India.  The expression “intended” is significant and important.   It  refers
to the intention of the dealer after the goods are manufactured and  packed.
 The expression “in the course  inter-State  trade  or  commerce”  is  quite
broad and wide.  An issue  may  arise  as  to  whether  the  stock  transfer
outside the State in terms of directions issued by  the  Central  Government
can be considered as sale or transaction in the course of inter-State  trade
or commerce.  In the case at hand, we would not decide  the  said  issue  or
question, for it was not raised or argued before the authorities and can  be
examined in an appropriate case when raised and  considered.  Be  it  noted,
sub-section (6) is a specific provision which deals with  the  case  of  the
dealer who has been issued the recognition  certificate  and  has  purchased
goods without payment of tax or at concessional  rates,  but  has  sold  the
manufactured goods or packaged goods otherwise than by way of  sale  in  the
State, or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or  export  out  of
India.  The  provision  specifically  deals  with  cases  where  the  dealer
manufactures  or  packs  the  notified  goods  and  has  taken  benefit   of
lower/concessional or nil rate of tax on the raw material but is  unable  to
fulfill the intendment, i.e., he has not been  able  to  sell  the  notified
goods by way of sale within the State or in course of inter-State  state  or
commerce or by way of export.  In such cases, the dealer is  liable  to  pay
the amount of difference on the amount of sale or purchase of such goods  on
which concession or nil rate of tax was paid on  account  of  issue  of  the
requirement certificate and the amount of tax calculated  @  4%.   The  sub-
section is a  particular  and  a  specific  section  which  deals  with  and
specifies the consequences when the dealer is  unable  to  meet  and  comply
with intendment.  The sub-section (6) would, thus, be applicable.

18.   Section 3-B undoubtedly commences with a non-obstante clause, but  the
provision has to be read harmoniously with sub-section (6) to  Section  4-B.
Any other interpretation would make sub-section (6) a dead  letter,  for  if
we accept the plea of the Revenue whenever there is violation or failure  to
abide with the “intendment”, Section 3-B would be invoked and  applied,  not
sub-section(6) to Section 4-B. Section 3-B would  apply  when  a  false  and
wrong certificate or declaration is made.   Sub-section  (6)  on  the  other
hand, deals with cases where  the  dealer  is  unable  to  comply  with  the
intendment, i.e., for some reason he is unable to sell the goods within  the
State, export them or sell them  in  the  course  of  inter-State  trade  or
commerce.  Intendment of the said nature has not been treated  as  false  or
wrong declaration as consequences have been prescribed in  sub-section  (6).
 It is essential to be stated that consistency and certainty in tax  matters
is necessary.  In cases relating to “Indirect Taxation”, this  principle  is
even more important.   Clarity  in  this  regard  is  a  necessity  and  the
interpretative vision should be same.

19.   In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find the view expressed  by  the
tribunal  which  has  been  concurred  by  the  High  Court  is   absolutely
defensible and does not warrant any interference.  Resultantly, the  appeal,
being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.    There shall be no  order  as  to
costs.

                                                       …….……….............J.
                             (DIPAK MISRA)



                                                              ….……………………..J.
                              (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
New Delhi,
October 28, 2016
-----------------------
[1]    (2005 ) 139 STC 380 (All)
[2]     2004 UPTC 331
[3]    2006 NTN, Vol. 29 page 223
[4]     2008 (232) ELT 7 (SC)
[5]     2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC)
[6]     1998 UPTC 631
[7]     1999 UPTC 277
[8]     1988 UPTC 1197


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.