Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Corpn. Ludhiana vs New Era Machine And Anr on 1 September, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
VARINDER SINGH
2014.09.05 09:59
RSA No. 3270 of 2010 [1] I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3270 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 1.9.2014
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana .. Appellant
versus
New Era Machines (P) Limited and another .. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for respondent no. 1.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
One of the defendants is before this Court against the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by respondent no. 1 -plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as respondent- plaintiff) for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from recovering octroi on the biscuit manufacturing machinery brought back from Germany after exhibition, was decreed.
The facts, as are evident from the judgments of the Courts below, are that respondent-plaintiff is engaged in the business of biscuit manufacturing machinery. It had sent the machinery manufactured by it to Germany for exhibition namely 'Terpack 2002', which was held from 24.4.2002 to 30.4.2002 at Dosseldorf Germany. The machinery was sent by invoices no. NEM Exp. 04 dated 8.3.2002 and invoice No. NEM Exp. dated 12.4.2002 and its corresponding Excise invoices no.148 to 150 dated 15.3.2002 another export invoice bearing no. NEM Exp. dated 8.3.2002 and corresponding Excise invoice bearing no. 5 dated 15.4.2002 which were essential for exporting machinery to Germany. Plaintiff had even sought necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India. Permission from Excise authorities was also obtained by plaintiff for sending the machinery for exhibition to be held in Germany. After the conclusion of exhibition said VARINDER SINGH 2014.09.05 09:59 RSA No. 3270 of 2010 [2] I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Biscuit Manufacturing Machinery was brought back to Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (India).
After the machinery was received back, the issue was raised by the appellant that octroi is leviable on the same. The claim was contested by the respondent-plaintiff on the plea that the biscuit manufacturing machinery was sent to Germany only for exhibition and the same has been received back. And further that factory of the respondent-plaintiff is situated outside the municipal limits of Ludhiana and the goods are not to be used, consumed or sold within the municipal limits of Ludhiana, hence, no octroi was leviable. The claim made by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit was contested by the appellant on the plea that no permission was sought before sending the machinery for exhibition and further the factory of the respondent-plaintiff is situated within the municipal limits of Ludhiana. As the machinery had now entered into the municipal limits of Ludhiana, the octroi was leviable. Both the courts below found that the case set up by the respondent-plaintiff was duly made out as the machinery manufactured by the respondent-plaintiff was sent for exhibition to Germany and was brought back for which due permission was sought from the Department of Custom and Excise and the Reserve Bank of India.
In the evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff, it was duly proved that the machinery was sent for exhibition to Germany and was received back and duly accounted in its books of accounts. There was no evidence led by the appellant to controvert the evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff that the same machinery which was sent for exhibition, was received back.
Learned courts below further found that octroi was leviable in case the goods entered in the municipal limits for use, consumption or sale therein. In the case in hand, the appellant had not been able to establish that any of the three aforesaid taxable events was there. In the present case, it was the machinery already manufactured by the respondent-plaintiff, which was sent for exhibition to Germany and was received back. It was already accounted for in the books of accounts when sent to Germany for exhibition and was again entered after receipt thereof.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material on record which has either been not considered or misread by VARINDER SINGH 2014.09.05 09:59 RSA No. 3270 of 2010 [3] I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh the learned Courts below to enable him to raise the argument that the findings recorded are perverse. In the absence thereof, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.
Even the issue regarding jurisdiction raised is also merely to be noticed and rejected for the reasons that the action of the appellant was totally without jurisdiction and further once two courts have already found that there is no merit in the claim made by the appellant sending the matter back to the Appellate Authority would be an exercise in futile. No substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1.9.2014 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge