http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1709 of 2008

PETITIONER: Moriroku UT India (P) Ltd

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/2008

BENCH: S. H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     1709 OF 2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 8789/07) with Civil Appeal No.    1710      of 2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9259/07)

KAPADIA, J.

       Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 8789/07: [Moriroku UT India (P) Ltd.  v.  State of U.P. & Ors.]

2.      This civil appeal filed by M/s Moriroku UT India (P) Ltd. is directed  against judgment dated 6.4.2007 delivered by Division Bench of the  Allahabad High Court in CWP (Tax) No. 13/04 by which, the writ petition  filed by the appellant herein, seeking to restrain the AO from imposing any  tax on moulds (toolings) supplied by its customer, Honda Siel Cars India  Ltd., free of cost was sought to be taxed under Section 3 of U.P. Trade Tax  Act, 1948,  stood dismissed. 3.      Appellant is the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956  and is a manufacturer of plastic automobile components. Appellant is  manufacturing such components for use in the Honda Siel Cars  manufactured in India by Honda Siel Cars Ltd. (hereinafter called the  "customer"), as per designs and specifications given by it. The customer  supplies tools, dies, moulds etc. (toolings) free of cost to the appellant herein  to enable it to manufacture automobile components.

4.      For the assessment year 2000-2001, a final assessment order was  passed on 29.10.2002 under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948  ("1948 Act"). Thereafter, a notice under section 21 was issued by the AO for  reassessment to which the appellant submitted its reply. By the said Notice,  the appellant was called upon to show cause why amortisation cost in  respect of toolings and moulds should not be taxed under section 3 of the  1948 Act.

5.      Vide reassessment order dated 30.9.2003, tax was imposed on the  amortisation cost on the ground that the sale price of the auto components  should be the same both for the purposes of Central Excise Act, 1944 ("1944  Act") and for 1948 Act.

6.      Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant-assessee  under section 9 of the 1948 Act, which was rejected in the light of the  circular dated June, 2003 issued by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. by  which amortisation cost was sought to be taxed under the 1948 Act.  Accordingly, the appellant herein challenged the validity of the circular

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

which, as stated above, was upheld by the High Court. Hence, this civil  appeal.

7.      A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is:   whether amortisation cost of toolings was includible in the sale price of auto  components as in the case of excise duty under Central Excise Act, 1944? In  other words, whether the Department was right in equating sales tax to  excise duty.          8.      For deciding this case, we are required to consider the concept of  amortisation of costs. The expression "amortisation", in accountancy  parlance is a general expression, which basically means the writing off of the  cost of an asset over a period of time. As a matter of usage, "depreciation" is  the expression used in relation to tangible assets, "depletion" to natural  assets, which are subject to exhaustion, for example, oil deposits or mineral  deposits, an "amortisation" to intangible assets, such as, patents, copyrights,  trade marks etc. Thus, depreciation is a form of amortisation. The  Accounting Standard (AS 28) relating to impairment of assets uses the  following expression:

"Depreciation (amortisation) is a systematic allocation of  the depreciable amount of an asset over its useful life."

9.      One of the working differences between the depreciation and  amortisation and the reason why the expression "depreciation" is used in  relation to tangible man-made assets in preference to amortisation is that the  notion of depreciation is to write off 90% of the cost of asset over its useful  life either on a sliding scale system, which is the written-down value  method, which works on the reducing balance principle or on the straight- line method \026 in which 90% of the cost is written off over the estimated  useful life. On the other hand, amortisation generally is to write off the entire  cost. The concept of amortisation is indicated in Section 35D of the Income- tax Act, 1961. It refers to amortisation of preliminary expenses. These are,  however, differences only in practice and not in the fundamental underlined  concept, i.e., to apportion the cost of even fixed assets over a period of time,  namely, their useful life.

10.     Amortisation, therefore, is an accounting concept similar to  depreciation. It is gradual reduction of the value of an asset or liability by a  periodic amount. It is essentially a means to allocate categories of assets and  liabilities to their pertinent time period. The key difference between  depreciation and amortisation is qua the nature of the items to which the  terms apply. Therefore, depreciation is generally used in the context of  tangible assets whereas amortisation is generally used in the context of  intangible assets, such as, copyrights, patents, goodwill and capitalized  costs. On the liability side also amortisation takes place. On the liability side,  amortisation is commonly applied to deferred revenue items such as  premium income or subscription revenue and, therefore, in such cases, it is  recognised as income distribution over some future period of time.  Amortisation is a means by which accountants apply the period concept in  accrual-based financial statements; income and expenses are recorded in the  periods affected, rather than when the cash actually changes hands as it  would be inappropriate to expense the entire cost of a facility in the year of  its acquisition if its life extends over several years just as it would be equally  wrong to expense fully an intangible asset only in the first year. Intangible  asset such as copyrights, patent and goodwill can be of benefit to a business  for many years, so the cost of accruing such an asset should be spread over  the entire time period that the company is likely to use the asset or generate  revenue from it. The term "amortisation" is also used in connection with  loans. The amortisation of a loan is the rate at which the principle balance  will be paid down over a period of time. Shorter periods will have higher  amounts amortised. Therefore, amortisation is the process of decreasing or  accounting for an amount over a period of time. It is allocation of a lump  sum amount to different time periods, particularly for loans and other forms

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

of finances. Amortisation of capital expenditures of certain assets under  accounting rules, particularly intangible assets, is analogous to depreciation.          11.     Department, in this case, has sought to load amortised cost of the  moulds supplied by its customer to the sale price of auto components in the  hands of the appellant herein. According to the Department, under Section  4(1)(a) of the 1944 Act, value has to be the normal price, which has to be the  sole consideration and if the price fixed is without consideration for the  moulds then, according to the Department, it cannot be said that price was  sole consideration. In other words, according to the Department, if the  consideration for moulds is not taken into account then under the excise law,  price, which is the measure of value, cannot be said to be the sole  consideration. According to the Department, in this case, price of auto  components sold by the appellant was fixed or to be fixed by inter se  negotiations. That, without the price of the moulds being taken into account,  the price of the finished product would not reflect the real assessable value.  According to the Department, without the supply of moulds from its  customer, final product could not be made. By use of the moulds, the  appellant was able to manufacture the auto components. Therefore,  according to the Department, some money value was required to be  attributed on account of usage of moulds as such moulds contributed to the  value of the final product, namely, auto components. Therefore, by not  taking into account the money value of moulds supplied by the customer, the  price stood depressed. In the circumstances, according to the Department,  amortised cost had to be loaded to the price charged or chargeable by the  appellant for the finished products.

12.     On the above case of the Department, the question which arises for  determination in this civil appeal is whether Section 4 of the 1944 Act read  with Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of  Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 ("Excise Valuation Rules 2000") can be read  into Section 3 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948?

13.     Valuation is a matter of principle. Under Section 4 of the 1944 Act,  the basis of valuation is the transaction value for each removal. Section 4  lays down the method for arriving at the assessable value for levying excise  duty. It refers to taxing the value. Therefore, Section 3 of the 1944 Act is the  charging section which creates the liability to pay excise duty whereas  Section 4 deals with assessment or quantification of liability ad valorem.  Under Section 4, duty of excise is chargeable with reference to the value of  excisable goods and "value" is defined by Section 4. The price charged by  the manufacturer on sale by him represents the measure of that value,  therefore, in the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and  Ors.  v.  Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 SC 420 it  has been held that under the excise law, prices and sale are related concepts.  In that judgment, it has been further observed that "price" under the excise  law has a definite connotation. That, the "value" of an excisable article has  to be computed with reference to the price charged by the manufacturer, the  computation being made in terms of Section 4. Therefore, Section 4 of the  1944 Act requires the Department to find out the real value of the excisable  article. As stated above, excise law is a tax on value. This is the most  important distinction between the excise law and the sales tax law.

14.     In the case of  M/s Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. Union of  India and Ors. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1006 at p. 1018 this Court held  that a duty of excise is a tax-levy on home-produced goods of a specified  class or description, the duty being calculated according to the quantity or  value of the goods and which duty is levied because of the event of  manufacture which is unrelated to and which is not dependent on any  commercial transaction. This observation indicates a vital difference  between excise law and sales tax laws. In the case of excise law, the taxable  event is manufacture, which is not related to commercial transaction. On the  other hand, commercial transaction is the basis of the price-structure in the  sales tax laws. In fact, the above observation of this Court in Chhotabhai  Jethabhai Patel case (supra) has been explained by this Court in Bombay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Tyre (supra) by saying that levy of excise duty is on manufacture while levy  of sales tax by its very nature arises at the stage beyond manufacture,  namely, the sale of the article. In cases of captive consumption, Section  4(1)(a) of the 1944 Act is not attracted. What is attracted in such cases is  Section 4(1)(b), which refers to "deemed value" and which requires  valuation to be done in terms of Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The  important aspect to be noted is that the Department, in the present case, has  borrowed the concept of "amortised goods" from Rule 6 of the Excise  Valuation Rules, 2000. Therefore, we quote hereinbelow Rule 6, which  reads as follows:

"Rule 6.        Where the excisable goods are sold in the  circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub section (1) of  section 4 of the Act except the circumstances where the  price is not the sole consideration for sale, the value of  such goods shall be deemed to be the aggregate of such  transaction value and the amount of money value of any  additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly  from the buyer to the assessee.

Explanation \026  For removal of doubts, it is hereby  clarified that the value, apportioned as appropriate, of the  following goods and services, whether supplied directly  or indirectly by the buyer free of charge or at reduced  cost for use in connection with the production and sale of  such goods, to the extent that such value has not been  included in the price actually paid or payable, shall be  treated to be the amount of money value of additional  consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the  buyer to the assessee in relation to sale of the goods  being valued and aggregated accordingly, namely :-

(i)     value of materials, components, parts and similar  items relatable to such goods;

(ii)    value of tools, dies, moulds, drawings, blue prints,  technical maps and charts and similar items used in  the production of such goods;

(iii)   ... (iv)    ..."

15.     As stated above, valuation is a matter of principle. Under Rule 3, the  value of any excisable goods has got to be determined for purposes of  Section 4(1)(b). In other words, the value for the purposes of Section 4(1)(b)  has to be determined only in accordance with the Excise Valuation Rules,  2000. Thus, the said Rules are limited and restricted in their application. The  concept of amortised cost is undoubtedly an accounting concept. However,  as held by this Court in the case of Delhi Electricity Regulatory  Commission  v.  BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2007) 3  SCC 33, accounting for costs differs according to the object and the purpose  for which the exercise is undertaken. The concept of depreciation  (amortisation) differs from enactment to enactment. In the above judgment  of this Court, in the case of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, this  Court was concerned with Electricity Act. The concept of depreciation in  that Act differs from the Income-tax Act. Electricity taxation stands on a  different footing vis-‘-vis corporate taxation. Therefore, this Court observed  that accounting for costs differs according to the object and purpose for  which the exercise is undertaken. Therefore, when excise law seeks to tax  the value, the concept therein cannot be bodily lifted and incorporated in  Section 3 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which essentially deals with  ascertainment of the price-structure depending upon the negotiations  between the parties. Moreover, the effect of clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to  Rule 6 of Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is that where any tools or dies or  moulds are supplied by the buyer free of charge or at a reduced costs for use

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

in connection with production of the goods, the value apportioned as  appropriate to such tools, moulds etc., to the extent such value has not been  included in the price paid or payable, has to be treated as the money value of  additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the  buyer/customer to the assessee in relation to sale of goods being valued and  aggregated accordingly. This is because under the excise law, the  Department has to ascertain the real value of excisable article and to  ascertain such real value, if in a given case, the Department detects  apportionment of the value between the manufacturer and its customer then  under clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Rule 6, on account of deeming fiction,  loading of such additional consideration is required to be made to the price  of the final products. Such loading takes place on account of the express  provision, namely, clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Rule 6, which uses the  expression "apportioned as appropriate". This is where the accounting  concept of amortisation has been incorporated specifically vide clause (ii) of  Explanation 1 to Rule 6. For levy of excise duty, "value" is to be determined  per unit of excisable goods. Tools, dies, moulds etc. have their own life span  and will be used for estimated production during their useful life.  Consequently, depending upon the expected useful life and/or expected  number of units likely to be produced, value of tools, dies, moulds etc.  supplied by the buyer/customer free of charge to the appellant is to be  appropriately apportioned per unit of production. This is where the concept  of amortisation comes in specifically in Rule 6. The amount so apportioned  is required to be added to the price/transaction value as per clause (ii) of  Explanation 1 to Rule 6 read with Section 4(1)(b). The important thing to be  noted is that this entire exercise of loading/adding to the transaction value is  exclusively for determination of assessable value for central excise purposes  and to fulfill the requirement of Section 4 which provides for measure for  levy of excise duty. To the same effect is our judgment in the case of CoC   v. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. vide Civil Appeal No. 8426/02 under Rule 9(1)(c)  of Customs Valuation (Determination of price of Imported Goods) Rules,  1988, which also refers to the addition of the cost of royalty payment to the  transaction value. Therefore, Rule 6 of Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 creates  the deeming fiction only for the purposes of Section 4(1)(b) of the 1944 Act  and for laying down the measure for levy of excise duty. It provides for  items which constitute additional consideration. There is no such  provision  in Section 3 of the 1948 Act. Therefore, one cannot borrow and  automatically apply the concept of amortised cost to Section 3 of the 1948  Act.

16.     Before analyzing Section 3 of the 1948 Act, it is important to keep in  mind that in Income-tax cases, tax is exigible on "real income" which means  the actual income received by or which accrues to the assessee. In case of  sales-tax, tax is exigible on real price received or receivable by the dealer in  respect of a sale. A dealer is entitled to frame his price-structure in a manner  conducive to the type of his business or with a view to withstand the  competition. In a given case, cost may be more than the price. The dealer  may base his price-structure to give an incentive to his clients, agents,  distributors etc., particularly if he is a manufacturer. In such cases, his price- structure has to be scrutinized by the Department under the sales-tax law to  find out the real sale-price receivable by him. There may be cases where he  is required to give a discount on account of defect in quality or delay. The  important thing to be noted is that "price" is the amount of consideration  which a seller charges the buyer for parting with the title to the goods. It  comprises of the amount which the dealer himself has to pay for the  purchase of the goods, the expenditure, which he is to incur for transporting  the goods from the place of purchase to the place of sale, the duties, if any,  levied on the particular goods bought by him, the octroi duty, which he may  have had to pay and his own margin of profit after meeting handling charges  including interest on the capital invested. The cost price of the goods  actually paid by him under various heads of accounts would no doubt  constitute the consideration for which he would part with his title to the  goods. The entire amount of consideration, including the sales tax  component, which the purchaser pays, would constitute the price of goods.  To this extent, there is no difficulty. The difficulty comes in when by law or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

by legal fiction the Department seeks to introduce a notional concept as an  element of the "real price". This is particularly important when there is no  rule to that effect in the sales-tax law. Even under the definition of turnover  in Section 2(i) one has to take into account only the aggregate amount for  which goods are bought or sold. It is this aggregate amount which is taxable  under Section 3 read with Section 2(i) of the 1948 Act.  

17.     We quote hereinbelow Section 3 and Section 2(i) of the 1948 Act,  which read as follows:

"3.  Liability to tax under the Act.- (1) Subject to the  provisions of this Act, every dealer shall, for each  assessment year, pay a tax at the rates provided by or  under Section 3-A or Section 3-D or Section 3-H on his  turnover of sales or purchases or both, as the case may  be, which shall be determined in such manner as may be  prescribed."

"2(i) ’Turnover’ means the aggregate amount for which  goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale or are  sold, by a dealer, either directly or through another, on  his account or on account of others, whether for cash or  deferred payment or other valuable consideration: Explanation I.- Omitted. Explanation II.- Subject to such conditions and  restrictions, if any, as may be prescribed in this behalf:-- (i)     the amount for which goods are sold or purchased  shall include the price of the packing material in  which they are packed, and any sums charged for  anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods  sold, at the time of or before the delivery thereof,  other than, cost of freight or delivery or cost of  installation or the amount realised as trade tax on  sale or purchase of goods, when such cost or  amount is separately charged ; (ii)    any cash or other discount on the price allowed in  respect of any sale and any amount refunded in  respect of articles returned by customers shall not  be included in the turnover; and (iii)   where for accommodating a particular customer, a  dealer obtains goods from another dealer and  immediately disposes of the same without profit to  the customer, the sales in respect of such goods  shall be included in the turnover of the latter dealer  alone." 18.     We also quote hereinbelow Section 2(h) of the 1948 Act, which reads  as follows: "(h)    ’Sale’, with its grammatical variations and cognate  expressions, means any transfer of property in  goods (otherwise than by way of a mortgage,  hypothecation, charge or pledge) for cash or  deferred payment or other valuable consideration,  and includes-- (i)     a transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a  contract of property in any goods for cash,  deferred payment or other valuable  consideration; (ii)     a transfer of property in goods (whether as  goods, or in some other form) involved in  the execution of a works contract; (iii)   the delivery of goods on hire purchase or  any system of payment by instalments; (iv)    a transfer of the right to use any goods for  any purpose (whether or not for a specified  period) for cash, deferred payment or other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

valuable consideration; (v)     the supply of goods by any unincorporated  association or body of persons to a member  thereof for cash, deferred payment or other  valuable consideration; and (vi)    the supply, by way of or as part of any  service or in any other manner whatsoever,  of goods, being food or any other article for  human consumption or any drink (whether  or not intoxicating) where such supply or  service is for cash or deferred payment or  other valuable consideration ; Explanation I.--A sale or purchase shall be  deemed to have taken place in the State,-- (i) in a case falling under sub-clause (ii) if the  goods are in the State at the time of transfer of  property in such goods (whether as goods or in  some other form) involved in the execution of the  works contract, notwithstanding that the agreement  for the works contract has been wholly or in part  entered into outside the State; (ii) in a case falling under sub-clause (iv), if the  goods are used by the lessee within the State  during any period, notwithstanding that the  agreement for the lease has been entered into  outside the State or that the goods have been  delivered to lessee outside the State. Explanation II.--Notwithstanding anything  contained in this Act, two independent sales or  purchases shall, for the purposes of this Act, be  deemed to have taken place-- (a) when the goods are transferred from a principal  to his selling agent and from the selling agent to  his purchaser, (b) when the goods are transferred from the seller  to a buying agent and from the buying agent to his  principal, if the agent is found, in either of the  cases aforesaid,-- (i)     to have sold the goods at one rate and passed  on the sale proceeds to his principal at  another rate; or (ii)    to have purchased the goods at one rate and  passed them on to his principal at another  rate; or (iii)   not to have accounted to his principal for the  entire collection or deductions made by him,  in the sales or purchases effected by him on  behalf of his principal; or (iv)    to have acted for a fictitious or non-existent  principal."          19.     U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is a self-contained code for levy of tax on  sale or purchase of goods in Uttar Pradesh. Clause (bb) of Section 2 defines  the expression "trade tax" to mean a tax payable under the Act. Clause (h) of  Section 2 defines the expression "sale" to include transfer of the right to use  any goods for any purpose for cash or deferred payment or other valuable  consideration. In this case we are concerned only with Section 3 and not  with Section 3-F of the 1948 Act. Section 3 inter alia provides that every  dealer shall for each assessment year pay a tax at the rates provided under  Section 3-A, Section 3-D or Section 3-H on his turnover of sales or  purchases or both, as the case may be, which shall be determined in such  manner as may be prescribed. Section 3-F provides for tax on transfer of  right to use any goods or goods involved in execution of works contract. The  definition of "sale" in Section 2(h) is in two parts. The first part covers the  normal sale and the second part covers deemed sales. In the present case, we

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

are concerned with sale of auto components to the buyer. It is a normal sale.  The aggregate amount for which these auto parts/components are sold  constitutes the turnover relating to such sales within the meaning of turnover  in Section 2(i). Therefore, it is on such turnover that liability of tax under  Section 3 of the 1948 Act has to be determined. Therefore, sales-tax or  trade-tax under the 1948 Act is leviable on sale, whether actual or deemed,  and for every sale there has to be a consideration. On the other hand, excise  duty is a levy on a taxable event of "manufacture" and it is calculated on the  "value" of manufactured goods. Excise duty is not concerned with  ownership or sale. The liability under the excise law is event-based and  irrespective of whether the goods are sold or captively consumed. Under the  excise law, the liability is there even when the manufacturer is not the owner  of raw material or finished goods (as in the case of job workers). Excise  duty, therefore, is independent of ownership (see: Ujagar Prints & Ors. v.  Union of India & Ors. [(1989) 3 SCC 488]. Therefore, for sales-tax  purposes, what has to be taken into account is the consideration for transfer  of property in goods from the seller to the buyer. For this purpose, tax is to  be levied on the agreed consideration for transfer of property in the goods  and in such a case cost of manufacture is irrelevant. As compared to the  sales-tax law, the scheme of levy of excise duty is totally different. For  excise duty purposes, transfer of property in goods or ownership is  irrelevant. As stated, excise duty is a duty on manufacture. The provisions  relating to measure (Section 4 of 1944 Act read with Excise Valuation  Rules, 2000) aim at taking into consideration all items of costs of  manufacture and all expenses which lead to value addition to be taken into  account and for that purpose Rule 6 makes a deeming provision by  providing for notional additions. Such deeming fictions and notional  additions in excise law are totally irrelevant for sales-tax purposes.  Therefore, in any event, these notional additions cannot be read into clause  5.1 and clause 5.2 of the General Agreement for Purchase of Parts dated  31.7.1997.   20.     Before concluding, it may be clarified, that, in the present case,  moulds were manufactured by the buyer/customer so that the auto  components could be manufactured by the appellant in terms of the  specifications given by the buyer. Therefore, the cost of manufacture of  these moulds was incurred by the buyer/customer and not by the appellant.  In our judgment, we have termed the "amortisation cost" as notional in the  sense that it is not the cost in the hands of the appellant. As stated above,  Rule 6 of Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 refers to items of additional  consideration. But for Rule 6 it was not possible for the Department under  the 1944 Act to load such items to the transaction value of the final product.  It is for above reasons, particularly because cost of manufacture is not  incurred by the appellant but by the customer, such cost cannot be added to  the price of the final product, particularly when there is no law to that effect.

21.     Accordingly, we hold that the High Court had erred in holding that the  amortization cost calculated in terms of Rule 6 of the Excise Valuation  Rules, 2000 is includible in the sale price of auto components sold by the  appellant herein to its customer, M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd..

22.     Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside and the civil appeal  filed by the assessee is allowed with no order as to cost. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 9259/07: [TS Tech Sun (India) Ltd.  v.  State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

        23.     In the light of the above judgment, in the case of  Moriroku UT  India (P) Ltd.  v.  State of U.P. & Ors., this appeal is also allowed with no  order as to costs.