Don’t miss the latest developments in business and finance.

Notice to Centre on generator bar

LEGAL DIGEST

Image
M J Antony New Delhi
Last Updated : Feb 06 2013 | 9:09 AM IST
The Supreme Court last week issued notice to the central government on the appeal of generator manufacturers arguing that the stipulation that they should provide integrated acoustic enclosure along with generators was arbitrary.
 
The Delhi High Court had earlier upheld the rule, issued by the central government under the Environment Protection Act (Second Amendment Rules 2002).
 
The regulation was made to protect crowded and industrial areas from noise pollution above 75 db(A) caused by diesel generator sets up to 1000 kva irrespective of the locations where they are used.
 
The main petitioner, Jackson & Co, contended that such enclosures would not be necessary in certain cases such as when the generator is used for agricultural purposes. The user can get the enclosure made according to his requirement at a cheaper rate.
 
The blanket order to the manufacturers that every generator, irrespective of their use and size, should be sold with enclosure was unfair, they argued. The Indian Generator Manufacturers Association has been allowed to intervene by the vacation bench.
 
Tax appeal of sugar firm allowed
 
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of EID Parry (India) Ltd against the Madras High Court ruling against it and in favour of the Tamil Nadu commercial tax authorities.
 
The company manufactures sugar after buying sugarcane from the farmers and paying them according to the Sugarcane Control Order under the Essential Commodities Act.
 
The company declared to the tax authorities the turnover on the basis of the minimum price paid by it and paid the tax on that.
 
The additional price paid under the advice of the state government was not included in the turnover. Later, it paid tax on the revised return. The authorities demanded interest on the price too. The company challenged this demand in the courts below, without success.
 
On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the claim of interest could not be sustained as the company had paid the tax even before the final assessment.
 
Cegat ruling overruled
 
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertiliser Corporation against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and ruled that the intermediate products in the manufacture of Butachlor were not liable to excise duty.
 
The excise authorities had raised demand of duty on two intermediate chemicals as they "came into existence" in the process. They were chemically stable and had shelf life. Therefore, it could be marketed, though the company did not, in fact, market it.
 
On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the principle adopted by the tribunal. It said in order to attract excise duty, the product must be have an identity and marketability.
 
Marketability cannot be established merely on the basis of the stability of the chemicals. They should be known in the market as commercial products.
 
A hypothetical possibility of sale of the commodity was not enough; there must be sufficient proof that the product is commercially known in the market, the Supreme Court ruled.

 
 

Also Read

First Published: Jun 13 2005 | 12:00 AM IST

Next Story