Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (2) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1, 1975 and whether the respondent is entitled to refund of the excess duty paid by him pending the decision of the High Court. The Assistant Collector took the view that malt and malt extract cannot be treated as food products and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the said Notification. On a writ petition being filed, the Delhi High Court upheld the respondent's plea and also held that it is entitled to the benefit of the said Exemption Notification. On the second issue, the Delhi High Court has overruled the Revenue's plea based on the theory of unjust enrichment. When this appeal came up for hearing on an earlier date, we held that the High Court was right in saying that malt and malt extract do qualify as food products and, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gories, (i) industries engaged in the manufacture of beverages, like Bournvita and Horlicks etc. and (ii) the breweries and distilleries engaged in manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquors. One of the category (i) industries is H.M.M. Limited, not known as Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Health Care Limited, respondent in the connected appeal. Like other purchasers in category (i), H.M.M. Limited took proforma credit of the duty paid by it on the purchase of malt/malt extract in terms of Notification No. 201 of 1979, which was in force at the relevant time. Other purchasers in category (i) also did the same. [So far as category (ii) purchasers, i.e., distilleries and breweries are concerned, Sri Salve says that they were not entitled to and d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... milar purchasers (who have availed of the proforma credit). There are only three purchasers in the first category. As a matter of fact, out of the sum of Rs. 2,41,53, 497.92p., Barmalt has already refunded an amount of Rs. 1,28,87,580.34p. to H.M.M. Limited and other similar purchasers. (The payment to H.M.M. Limited is stated to be in the sum of Rupees eight lakhs.) Barmalt will pay over the rest of the amount (received by them by way of refund) to the respective purchasers. Even the amount of Rs. 25,47,485.24p. will also be paid over to the respective purchasers as soon as it is received from the Revenue. In this manner, Barmalt would have paid over the entire amount received by them by way of refund to their purchasers in which case no q .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ased from all the three producers. The other purchasers are not before us. Only the H.M.M. Limited is before us. It is the respondent in connected appeal, viz., Civil Appeal Nos. 3387-88 of 1992. An undertaking has been filed on behalf of H.M.M. Limited stating that they are agreeable to the said formula provided the formula is applied uniformly to other two producers viz., Malt Company of India Limited and A.K. Malt (Private) Limited also. Sri Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Counsel of the H.M.M. Limited, no doubt stated that if this formula is applied and implemented uniformly, H.M.M. Limited would be prepared to reverse the proforma credit equal to the amount received by them from the said three producers notwithstanding the fact that H.M.M. Li .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty to its purchasers - that Barmalt should refund to the State the amount received by them by way of refund (pursuant to the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court) except a sum of Rupees eight lakhs. In view of the fact that H.M.M. Limited is now before us and it has admittedly received the said sum of Rupees eight lakhs from Barmalt, the H.M.M. Limited is directed to reverse the credit taken by it to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) and pay it over to the State. 6. Civil Appeal No. 960 of 1986 is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. C.A. Nos. 2447/89, 3387-88/92 and 9947/95 : 7. No separate arguments were addressed in these appeals in view of the debate regarding the formula suggested in Civil App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates