0

Delhi High Court Deems Monthly Pension of ₹3K for Building and Construction Workers Minuscule in a City Like Delhi.

Blog , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board v. Dulari Devi and Anr.

Case no: LPA 372/2023 and CM APPL.20067/2023

Dated on: 01st May, 2024.

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bhansal.

Facts of the case: 

The appeal is directed against a common judgement dated 23.02.2023 rendered by learned single judge in WP (C) 13969/2022 and WP (C) 14432/2022. Respondent No.1 in the appeal is the wife of the deceased worker, Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta, while the respondent No.2 is the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The respondent No.1/ Smt. Dulari Devi had preferred WP (C) 13969/2022, an order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the appellant, i.e; Delhi Building and the Other Construction Workers Welfare Board was assailed. Shri Shankar Gupta had been employed as a building worker in Delhi for decades. He registered as with the welfare board for the first time on 17.12.2007, when he was 58 years old. At the time of the registration, Shri Shankar Gupta had deposited the contribution for three months i.e; 17.12.2007 and 17.03.2008. Acknowledging the fact that Shankar Gupta had reached 60 on 01.01.2009. Upon completing 60years, Gupta preferred an application for pension with the Welfare Board. An official had informed him with the fact that his application to grant pension has been rejected by the Welfare Board on 19.08.2020. Aggrieved by the decision, Shri Shankar Gupta lodged an appeal on 19.01.2021 under Rules 273(4) of the BOCW rules. Unfournately, Shri Shankar Gupta expired on 05.05.2021, nearly three weeks after the order dated 16.04.2021 was passed. Respondent No.1/ Smt Dulari Devi received a fresh notice dated 28.07.2021 to conduct a hearing for the same. Based on the advice of the Legal Advisor, Labour Department, the Secretary, welfare Board directed the Deputy Secretary, North-West to decide the matter afresh, after hearing Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta. Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta expired on 05.05.2021. Respondent no.1/Smt Dulari Devi (wife) received fresh notice to conduct hearing in the matter. Another deficiency letter dated 02.09.2021 was issued by the Welfare Board advising to produce documents related to the renewal of Shri Guari Shankar Gupta’s membership for the period 17.03.2008 and 16.10.2012. Since the receipts were unavailable and not submitted, the application preferred by the deceased Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta for granting a pension was temporarily closed. Respondent no.1/Smt Dulari Devi and others protested against the closure of the application. In response, the Secretary of the Welfare Board suggested to file affidavits to overcome the objections raised by the Welfare Board. As per records one, Ms Badam Verva, who was in a similar situation, filed an affidavit in substitution of the renewal receipts. Since Ms Badam Verva application for pension was not processed by the Welfare Board, she approached this Court, where High Court issued directions to consider the affidavit filed by Ms Badam Verva. Respondent no.1/Smt Dulari Devi, taking note of this Order filed affidavit on 10.05.2022, but the Welfare Board rejected the application for pension vide order dated 23.08.2022. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2022, respondent no.1/Smt Dulari Devi filed WP (C) 13969/2022 which was disposed vide the impugned judgment.  

Contentions of the appellant: 

Under the BOCW Act and BOCW Rules, a building worker is not entitled to pension solely upon reaching 60 years of age. The building worker is required to apply for pension in the prescribed form, in accordance with Rule 272 of the BOCW Rules. Section 14(2) of BOCW Act, provides that a construction worker would be eligible for a pension if he fulfils the following criteria. (i)He should have attained the age of 60 years. (ii) He should have been a beneficiary continuously for three (3) years immediately before reaching the age of 60. The explanation to Section 14 (2) permits inclusion in the stipulated timeframe, i.e., three (3) years, any period for which the building worker has been a beneficiary with any other Welfare Board immediately before his registration with the concerned Welfare Board. Since the deceased, Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta had been registered with the Welfare Board only for three months, between 17.12.2007 and 17.03.2008, he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as provided in Section 14(2) of the BOCW Act. The impact of the impugned judgment is that any person who acquires membership of the Welfare Board, even for a day between the prescribed age span, i.e., 18 years and 60 years, is entitled for pension and such an interpretation by the learned Single Judge would put severe financial burden on the Welfare Board. The Supreme Court in in NCC-CL v. Union of India & Ors. Held; pension constitutes permanent liability which the states may not be able to sustain in the long term, the State Welfare Boards may formulate pension schemes depending upon their financial capacity. However, pension should be admissible to only those registered of 10 years. In this regard the State Welfare Board should issue a certificate to the effect that a BOC worker has remained registered for a period of 10 years.

Contentions of the respondent: 

BOCW Act is a welfare legislation and under Section 22(1)(a) to (g) of the BOCW Act and Clause (h) of Section 22(1) of the BOCW Act, the Welfare Board can make provisions for and improvement of such other welfare measures and facilities. As far as pension payment to beneficiaries was concerned, as per Section 22 (1) (b) pension would be paid to beneficiaries who completed 60 years of age. This provision had to be read with Section 2(1)(b), which defines beneficiary as a building worker registered under Section 12 of the BOCW Act. Section 12, provides that only that building worker could register himself with the Welfare Board who had completed 18 years of age but had not reached 60 years of age and who had been engaged in any building or construction work for not less than 90 days for the preceding 12 months. Under Section 14 of the BOCW Act, the registration acquired by the building worker ceases once the building worker attain 60 or when he is not engaged in building or other construction work for 90 days or more in a year. Under Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 14 (1), the Board had power to make provisions or improvements in the welfare measures and facilities as may be prescribed from time to time. A building worker could avail welfare measures or improvements only if he had been a beneficiary for at least three years immediately preceding the date he completed 60 years of age. For availing pension, the building worker was not required to fulfil the criteria stipulated in Section 14(2). No eligibility criteria was provided in the BOCW Act for a pension grant. The eligibility criteria was, provided in Rule 272 of the BOCW Rules wherein, a building worker, who was a member of the fund would become eligible for pension upon completion of 60 years of age, if he had been working for not less than one year after the commencement of the BOCW Rules. It was contended that contrary to the submissions advanced on behalf of the Welfare Board, there was no inconsistency between the provisions of the BOCW Act and the BOCW Rules.  

Issues:  

Whether Smt. Dulari Devi would be entitled to receive pension in terms of the BOCW Act read with the BOCW Rules? 

Legal provisions:

 Section 12 of the BOCW Act- there is no restriction for a worker to avail or get registered after fulfilling the conditions. 
Section 14(2) of BOCW Act- The members of the export committee shall be paid such fees and allowances for attending the meetings of the committee as may be prescribed.

Courts analysis and judgement: 

There is no contestation that Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta was a building worker within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) of the BOCW Act. There is no dispute that Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta fulfilled the criteria for registration as a beneficiary, as prescribed under Section 125 of the BOCW Act. Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta’s application for registration renewal was allowed on 31.01.2012. The exercise of the power of registration/renewal in Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta’s case, as observed in the order dated 16.04.2021 was in in accordance to Section 17 of the BOCW Act. It is not disputed that Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta had deposited Rs.532/- as his contribution for the period between 17.03.2008 and 16.10.2012. The renewal of registration as a beneficiary would relate back to March 2008 and therefore, on the date Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta reached 60, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria concerning registration and crossing the threshold of 60 years of age to claim a pension from the Welfare Board. The point to considered as whether Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta should have been registered as a beneficiary in the immediately preceding three years before attaining the age of 60 years as for claiming pension? Under Section 22 (1) (a) to (g) of the BOCW Act invest in the Welfare Board power to accord specific benefits to registered beneficiaries. The Welfare Board has been, among other things, conferred with a specific power to grant pensions to beneficiaries who have reached 60 years of age. However, the BOCW Act does not provide eligibility criteria as regards the qualifying period for which the building worker should have worked before he reached 60. The stipulated eligibility criteria of having been a beneficiary for at least three (03) years preceding the date when the beneficiary completes 60 years of age cannot apply to specific benefits which are the subject matter of Section 22 (1) (a) to (g). Pension is one such specific benefit, provided in Section 22 (1) (a) to (g), and cannot be controlled by the eligibility criteria provided in sub- Section (2) of Section 14. The eligibility criteria concerning pensions are expressly provided in Rule 272 of BOCW Rules 8. The said provision, in no uncertain terms, states that a member of the fund who is a building worker would be eligible for a pension on reaching 60 years of age if he has worked for a period of not less than one year. Although Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta had asserted that he had been working as a building worker in Delhi for several decades before his registration with the Welfare Board on 17.12.2007, even if it is assumed that he commenced his work from the said date, he would have met the minimum eligibility criteria of one year provide in Rule 272 before the date when he completed the age of 60 years. 21. It is not disputed that Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta turned 60 on 01.01.2009, at which point he had already worked as a building worker for more than one (01) year. Therefore, the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the Welfare Board was contrary to the provisions of the BOCW Act and BOCW Rules. The object and purpose of the BOCW Act is not only to regulate employment and conditions of service for building workers but also to provide safety, health, and other welfare measures from time to time. The Welfare Board, have to find resources, like increasing the rate of levy of cess, to gather funds to extend benefits to building workers. The financial burden that may fall on the Welfare Board cannot be a basis for non-implementation of the will of the legislature, which can very well be gathered in the scheme of the BOCW Act and Rules. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement





 

0

Supreme Court Directs Bombay High Court to Scrutinize Legality of Advocates’ Filed ‘Minutes of Order’

blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: Ajay Ishwar Ghute and Ors V. Meher K. Patel and Ors

Case no: Civil appeal No. 4786 of 2024

Dated on: 30th April, 2024

Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts of the case: 
An Arbitration Petition was filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before single judge of Bombay High court wherein consent terms were filed in the arbitration petition preferred by the first respondent. In terms of the consent terms the learned single judge recorded that the process of handing over the possession of the suit property by the respondents to the first respondents as commenced. The disputes were related to lands of Parsi Dairy Farm. The seventh respondent filed an interim application after two years of filing the consent terms by stating that High court had directed the Police to give police protection to the parties for completing the process of handing over possession. A compound wall was to be constructed in terms of the consent terms, which according, to the seventh respondent could not be done as local persons obstructed the work. The learned single judge of the Bombay High court disposed the interim application by directing Police/Tahasildar/ Collector/ Gram Panchayat office and all other Government authorities to offer assistance to construct a wall to safeguard the suit property. The persons who had obstructed the construction of the wall were not part to the arbitration proceedings/ interim application. An application was filed to Deputy Superintendent of Land Records by first respondent and five others for measuring the land who vide later dated 20.11.2021 informed the first respondent that several persons have objected, in writing, in carrying out the survey. Hence, holding an enquiry was necessary. First and second respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution for non-compliance with the orders of the Arbitration Petition regarding survey and construction of compound wall. The persons who raised objections were not impleaded in the Writ Petition. The Division Bench on 09.03.2022 ordered the Superintendent of Police to be present. The Superintendent of Police filed an affidavit stating that local tribals have gathered an impression that they were attempted to be illegally dispossessed and they insisted that the lands be demarcated before constructing the compound wall. The District Superintendent of Land Records vide an affidavit stated that there are certain persons to whom the petitioners and others have sold small portions of land and if a compound wall is constructed the third parties are likely to get landlocked. The Division bench without noticing the contentions of the above Government officers, instead of directing impleadment of the affected parties passed an order in terms of ‘Minutes of order’ dated 16.03.2022, for issuing a direction to survey authorities to carry out demarcation of the boundary and to direct the police to provide protection for constructing the compound wall.

Contentions of the appellant: 
Of the thirty review petitioners Nos. 7-18 were shown as interveners in the “Minutes of order” though they had not engaged any advocate. The said interveners never met the advocate who is shown to have signed ‘Minutes of order’ on their behalf. The appellants had rights in respect of several properties which were likely to be adversely affected by the construction of the compound wall. The principles of Natural justice were not followed before permitting the construction of the compound wall. The impugned order based on ‘Minutes of order’ is completely illegal and vitiated by the non-joinder of the necessary parties.

Contentions of the respondent: 
The compound wall had been built in such a manner that no person was landlocked or in any manner inconvenienced. The owners of the adjacent lands continue to enjoy unhindered and unfettered access to their respective land.

Legal provisions:

Article 226- Writ Jurisdiction of High Court.

Issue:

Whether the High court was justified in passing a order while exercising Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India permitting the first and second respondent to construct a compound wall under police protection in terms of “Minutes of Order”?

Court’s analysis and judgement: 
The court summarised conclusions regarding the concept of Minutes of order as follows: 
a) The practice of filing ‘Minutes of order’ prevails in Bombay High court the object of which is to assist the court. 
b) An order passed in terms of ‘Minutes of order’ is not a consent order. It is an order in invitum. 
c) The Courts to apply its mind as to whether parties likely to be affected by an order in terms ‘Minutes of order’ have been impleaded to the proceedings and whether such order is lawful? If the court finds that all parties are not impleaded the court to defer passing of the order till all the necessary parties are impleaded. 
d) If the court is of the view that an order made in terms of ‘Minutes of order’ will not be lawful court should decline to pass order in terms of ‘Minutes of order’.  
Findings on the facts of the case- 
It was the duty of the Court to call 1st and 2nd respondent to implead persons who were likely to be affected by the construction of the compound wall. The Division Bench of the High court failed to make an enquiry as to whether the third parties will be affected by the construction of the compound wall. Hence, order dated 16.03.2022 in terms of ‘Minutes of order’ is entirely illegal and must be set aside. The writ Petition to be remanded to the High court. After remand, High court must decide who are the necessary parties to the petition in case of failure of 1st and 2nd respondents to implead the necessary parties the High court is within its power to dismiss the Writ Petition and pass an order of restoration of status quo ante by directing demolition of the compound wall.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement

0

Supreme court upholds CESTAT view that the process of labeling/ re labeling, packing / re-packing amounts to “manufacturing”.

blog , , , , ,

Case title: Commissioner of central excise Belapur V. Jindal Drugs Ltd

Case no: Civil appeal No. 1121 of 2016 and 788-790 of 2022

Dated on: 30th April, 2024

Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts of the case:

This is an Appeal against the Order dated 16.04.2015 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against Appeal No.E/86389/13-Mum.The Respondent is engaged in the business of exporting cocoa butter and cocoa powder. Its factory at Jammu manufactures cocoa butter and cocoa powder. Respondent has another unit located at Taloja. The Cocoa butter manufactured at Jammu are received by the Respondent’s unit at Taloja. In the Taloja unit, respondent affixed two labels on two sides of the packages of the goods received from its Jammu factory and had claimed rebate of the duty paid on the exported goods. Further, respondent availed cenvat credit of the duty paid on those two goods at the time of clearance from Jammu. Respondent also imported cocoa butter and cocoa powder from China and Malaysia which was received at Taloja.The factory of the respondent at Taloja was visited by the officials of the appellant and it was found that the respondent was not only putting labels on the good bought from the Jammu unit but also was putting labels on the imported goods. As the labels were already fixed on the boxes containing the two goods additional labels affixed did not amount to manufacture as the additional labels affixed would not enhance the marketability of the goods which were already marketable. The appellant then issued a show cause notice to the respondents on 09.10.2012 to show cause as to why activity of labelling undertaken by the respondent on the product received from the Jammu unit and also on the imported goods are not to be held as activity of manufacturing in the terms of Note 3 chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. It was alleged that the respondent had wrongly availed cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 23,02,53,752/. from the period of June, 2008 to July 2012. It was also alleged that the rebate amounting to Rs. 13,22,30,368 from the period of June, 2008 to July, 2011 was erroneously sanctioned. Thereafter, hearing the respondent, appellant passed an order on 25.02.2013 that the cenvat credit availed was irregular and the rebate sanctioned was erroneous thereby, the respondent was made liable to refund the credit availed for Rs. 23,02,53,752/- and a rebate of Rs. 13,22,30,368/- along with interest and penalty of 23,02, 53,752/- However, the penalty could be reduced to 25%, if the assessee paid the duty within 30 days of order. The Respondent preferred appeal before CESTAT. After hearing the matter CESTAT passed an order dated 16.04.2015 by stating that activity undertaken by respondent is covered by Note 3 to chapter 18 which amounts to manufacture and that there was no suppression or misrepresentation of the material fact by the respondent. That being the position the cenvat credit and the refund availed by the respondent was right and hence no penalty could be imposed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has now preferred appeal.

Contentions of the appellant: 
The activity undertaken at the Taloja unit i.e; putting labels on both the sides of the cartons that were labelled at Jammu is not a manufacturing activity. Note 3 to chapter 18 Central Excise Tariff Act cannot be read in the manner that the activity of the labelling amounted to manufacture. The Technical Member of CESTAT had given a good reason to why such an activity cannot be considered as a manufacturing activity.

Contentions of the respondent: 
In Note 3 chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, Parliament has consciously replaced the word ‘and’ by the word ‘or’, vide amendment dated 01.03.2008, thereby making it clear that the activity of labelling or re-labelling amounted to “manufacture”.

Legal provisions:

Section 11A (1) of the central excise act- deals with recovery of duties not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. 
Rule 14 of Cenvat credit rules 2004- credit has been taken wrongly or erroneously refunded. 
Rule 3 of cenvat credit rules- A manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit.   


Issues: 
Whether the activity of labelling amounts to manufacture?

Courts analysis and judgement:

Supreme court examined the definition of “manufacture” under Section 2(f)(ii) under Central excise Act “manufacture” includes any process, (i)incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. 
(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture; or 
(iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer, and the word “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account; Therefore, the word ‘manufacture’ includes any process which is incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; any process specified in Section or chapter notes of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or any process in relations to goods specified in 3rd schedule which involves packing or re-packing, labelling or re-labelling, declaration or alteration of retail sales price or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable. Further, post-amendment of 01.03.2008 to Note 3 to chapter 18 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, “manufacture” contemplates any of the three processes. The three processes are- 
i) labelling or re-labelling of containers; or 
ii) repacking from bulk packs to retail packs; or 
iii) the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer. 
If any one of the above three processes is satisfied, then the same would amount to “manufacture” under Section 2 (f) (ii) of the Central Excise Act. There is no dispute as to the activity carried out by the respondent at the Taloja unit. Whether the goods are brought from Jammu or are imported, those re-labelled on both the sides of the pack containing the goods at the Taloja unit and thereafter, introduced in the market or sent for exports, in terms of Note 3 to the chapter 18 this process of re-labelling amounts to “manufacture”. The view taken by the CESTAT is correct and no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the civil appeal 788-790 of 2022 stands dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement

0

Sextortion is a social menace represents profound violation of privacy :Delhi High court

Blog, Delhi High Court, News & Media links

  1. Case title: SOUKIN VS THE NCT STATE NEW DELHI
    Case no.: CRL.MA. 9451/2024 and 9452/2024
    Dated on: 24th April 2024
    Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
    FACTS OF THE CASEThe present applications are filed under section 438 of the criminal procedure code ,1973 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail for the offences punishable under sections 419,420,388,170, of Indian penal code 1860.
    The complainant namely, Dewan Singh Malik who alleged that on 10.10.2022, he received a WhatsApp video call from an unknow lady, and insisted for private video call and later recorded the video call. Thereafter complainant received several calls from different phone numbers who introduced themselves as police officers/ Youtube Employees and extorted a total amount of Rs. 16 Lakhs on the pretext of removing the video from all social media platforms and threatening him of false accusation in the murder case of the lady in the video and on the pretext of settling the matter case with her family.
    During investigation, on analysis of CDRs of the alleged numbers it was found further, three accused persons were arrested on 22.12.2022. During the interrogation, the said accused persons disclosed the names present applicants they stated that they used to commit such offences along with present applicants. They further disclosed that SIM cards which were used by them for calling victims and for opening of the bank account used for receiving money.
    The investigation in the present case further reveals that the alleged mobile numbers are on fake IDs and were used in one common IMEI numbers, it was found one of the accused name called soukin.
    CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
    The appellants, through their counsel, submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated based on the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons and there is nothing incriminating against the applicants. Further submits that the applicants have already joined the investigation and provided necessary information available with him. He submits that the applicants have no connection with the complainant an they are not a beneficiary of the alleged cheated amount.
    He submits that there is no evidence to establish any nexus whatsoever between the applicants and the offences as alleged in the FIR.
    CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
    The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state opposed to grant of any relief to the applicants.
    He submits that the allegation against the applicants are serious in nature. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the applicants. He submits that the applicants have joined investigation in terms of the direction of this court but they have not cooperated in the same. He states that the all accused persons have been active member of the organised crime syndicate being run for carrying out an organised crime of sextortion.
    LEGAL PROVISIONS
    Section 438 of criminal procedure code 1973:- clearly says that when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non bailable offence, he may apply to the high court or court of session under this section, and that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
    Section 419 : punishment imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both
    Section 388: Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
    Section 420: punishment imprisonment for 7 years or fine or both
    COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
    The material presented by the prosecution establish prima facie involvement of the applicants. The evidence including digital records and communication, link the applicant to the alleged offence. Considering the status report flied by the state, it cannot be held, at this stage, that the investigation is being carried out with the intention to injure or humiliate the applicant. The nature and the gravity of allegations are serious specific allegations have also been made that the applicants have been indulging into similar offence on earlier occasions.
    Sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace.it involves the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favours from victims, often leading to severe psychological trauma. Dismantling such a complex modus operandi, which is alleged to have been used by the applicants and the other accused persons, by its very nature requires thorough investigation and custodial interrogation which ought not to be curtailed by passing and order under section 438of the CrPC. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influences the outcome of the trail and also not be taken as expression of opinion on the merit of the case.
    Hence, the present application is accordingly dismissed.

    “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
    Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

0

Supreme court upholds CESTAT view that the process of labeling/ re labeling, packing / re-packing amounts to “manufacturing”.

Uncategorized , , ,

Case title: Commissioner of central excise Belapur V. Jindal Drugs Ltd

Case no: Civil appeal No. 1121 of 2016 and 788-790 of 2022

Dated on: 30th April, 2024

Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts of the Case:

This is an Appeal against the Order dated 16.04.2015 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against Appeal No.E/86389/13-Mum . The Respondent is engaged in the business of exporting cocoa butter and cocoa powder. Its factory at Jammu manufactures cocoa butter and cocoa powder. Respondent has another unit located at Taloja. The Cocoa butter manufactured at Jammu are received by the Respondent’s unit at Taloja. In the Taloja unit, respondent affixed two labels on two sides of the packages of the goods received from its Jammu factory and had claimed rebate of the duty paid on the exported goods. Further, respondent availed cenvat credit of the duty paid on those two goods at the time of clearance from Jammu. Respondent also imported cocoa butter and cocoa powder from China and Malaysia which was received at Taloja. The factory of the respondent at Taloja was visited by the officials of the appellant and it was found that the respondent was not only putting labels on the good bought from the Jammu unit but also was putting labels on the imported goods. As the labels were already fixed on the boxes containing the two goods additional labels affixed did not amount to manufacture as the additional labels affixed would not enhance the marketability of the goods which were already marketable. The appellant then issued a show cause notice to the respondents on 09.10.2012 to show cause as to why activity of labelling undertaken by the respondent on the product received from the Jammu unit and also on the imported goods are not to be held as activity of manufacturing in the terms of Note 3 chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. It was alleged that the respondent had wrongly availed cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 23,02,53,752/. from the period of June, 2008 to July 2012. It was also alleged that the rebate amounting to Rs. 13,22,30,368 from the period of June, 2008 to July, 2011 was erroneously sanctioned. Thereafter, hearing the respondent, appellant passed an order on 25.02.2013 that the cenvat credit availed was irregular and the rebate sanctioned was erroneous thereby, the respondent was made liable to refund the credit availed for Rs. 23,02,53,752/- and a rebate of Rs. 13,22,30,368/- along with interest and penalty of 23,02, 53,752/- However, the penalty could be reduced to 25%, if the assessee paid the duty within 30 days of order.  The Respondent preferred appeal before CESTAT. After hearing the matter CESTAT passed an order dated 16.04.2015 by stating that activity undertaken by respondent is covered by Note 3 to chapter 18 which amounts to manufacture and that there was no suppression or misrepresentation of the material fact by the respondent. That being the position the cenvat credit and the refund availed by the respondent was right and hence no penalty could be imposed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has now preferred appeal.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The activity undertaken at the Taloja unit i.e; putting labels on both the sides of the cartons that were labelled at Jammu is not a manufacturing activity. Note 3 to chapter 18 Central Excise Tariff Act cannot be read in the manner that the activity of the labelling amounted to manufacture. The Technical Member of CESTAT had given a good reason to why such an activity cannot be considered as a manufacturing activity.

Contentions of the Respondent:

In Note 3 chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, Parliament has consciously replaced the word ‘and’ by the word ‘or’, vide amendment dated 01.03.2008, thereby making it clear that the activity of labelling or re-labelling amounted to “manufacture”.

Legal Provisions:

Section 11A (1) of the central excise act- deals with recovery of duties not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.

Rule 14 of Cenvat credit rules 2004- credit has been taken wrongly or erroneously refunded.

Rule 3 of cenvat credit rules- A manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit.

Note 3 Chapter 18 Central Excise Tariff Act

Issue:

Whether the activity of labelling amounts to manufacture?

Courts Analysis and Judgement:

Supreme court examined the definition of “manufacture” under Section 2(f)(ii) under Central excise Act “manufacture” includes any process,- (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product;

(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture; or

(iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer, and the word “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account;

Therefore, the word ‘manufacture’ includes any process which is incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; any process specified in Section or chapter notes of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or any process in relations to goods specified in 3rd schedule which involves packing or re-packing, labelling or re-labelling, declaration or alteration of retail sales price or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable. Further, post-amendment of 01.03.2008 to Note 3 to chapter 18 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, “manufacture” contemplates any of the three processes. The three process are-

i) labelling or re-labelling of containers; or

ii) repacking from bulk packs to retail packs; or

iii) the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer.

If any one of the above three processes is satisfied then the same would amount to “manufacture” under Section 2 (f) (ii) of the Central Excise Act.

There is no dispute as to the activity carried out by the respondent at the Taloja unit. Whether the goods are brought from Jammu or are imported, those re-labelled on both the sides of the pack containing the goods at the Taloja unit and thereafter, introduced in the market or sent for exports, in terms of Note 3 to the chapter 18 this process of re-labelling amounts to “manufacture”. The view taken by the CESTAT is correct and no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the civil appeal 788-790 of 2022 stands dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 1,827