PHIROZE DINSHAW LAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six petitions are filed seeking leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Bombay High court dated 29/11/1991 directing the Registrar of the High court to file a complaint against M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Private Limited and some of its officers and dealers under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code. This order was made under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the court being satisfied prima facie that the said persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and that it is expedient in the interests of justice that they should be tried therefor. Of the six special leave petitions filed, thepetitioner in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20051 of 1991, Shri K. S. Gurumurthy, died pending the special leave petition. The said special leave petition has, therefore, become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. One of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20049 of 1991, Mrs. Ameen (fourth petitioner) has also expired pending the special leave petition. The said special leave petition accordingly becomes infructuous insofar as the said petitioner is concerned. Of course, so far as other petitioners are concerned, the special leave petition still survives.

(2.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Godrej, one of the corporate giants of this country, manufactures, among other goods, refrigerators. These refrigerators are packed in polythene covering only when they are to be delivered to dealers situated at a short distance from the factory but where they have to be delivered at distant places, they are packed in Corrugated Fibre Containers (CFCs) to protect them from damage in the course of transport and for convenient handling. In the proceedings relating to valuation under Section 4 of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the period 1976- 78, the question arose whether the value of CFCs should be included in the value of refrigerators for the purpose of value under Section 4 of the central Excises Act. Godrej pleaded for exclusion which plea was rejected by the Assistant Collector. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) upheld Godrej's contention. The matter ended there so far as the said period is concerned. In 1982-83, the Revenue served demand notices for a subsequent period, again including the value of CFCs in the value of refrigerators. Godrej went to Bombay High court by way of Writ Petition No. 11 10 of 1983 questioning the said notices. The writ petition came up for final hearing before a learned Single Judge in March 1984. Meanwhile, this court had delivered the judgment in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. in May 1983, laying down the principles governing the said issue among others. At the hearing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, Godrej wanted to rely upon certain letters said to have been addressed to it by its dealers to support its claim for exclusion of the value of CFCs. The counsel for the Revenue opposed the admission of the said letters at that stage. In view of the said objection, the learned Single Judge declined to admit or rely upon the said letters. The writ petition was, however, allowed on other grounds. The letters which were actually handed over to the learned Single Judge in the court, it is stated, remained in the record of the court.