Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1973 OF 2006

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Appellant (s) Vs.

Baldev Spinners Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondent (s)

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 1976, 1982, 1983 & 1986 of 2006 and 350 of 2007

J U D G M E N T  

R. V. Raveendran J.,

These  appeals  by  special  leave  by  the  State  of  Haryana  raise  the

common  question  about  the  validity  of  withdrawal  of  the  Eligibility

Certificate issued under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules

1975 (‘Rules’ for short).

2. We may first refer to the relevant legal provisions. Sections 13B and

25A of the Haryana Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) enabled the

state government, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do in

the interest of industrial development of the state, to exempt from payment

of tax,  or defer  the payment of tax,  by such class  of industries,  for such

period, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Chapter IV-A of the

Rules consisting of Rule 28A dealt with class of industries, period and other

conditions for exemption/deferment from payment of tax. The definitions of

eligibility  certificate,  exemption  certificate  and  entitlement  certificate  in

clauses (j), (k) and (l) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 28A are extracted below:  

“(j) ‘Eligibility certificate’ means a certificate granted in form S.T. 72 by the appropriate Screening Committee to an eligible industrial unit for the purpose of grant of exemption/deferment.

(k) ‘Exemption certificate’ means a certificate granted in form S.T.73 by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the District to the eligible industrial unit holding eligibility certificate which entitles the unit to avail of exemption from the payment of sales or purchase tax or both, as the case may be;  

(l) ‘Entitlement certificate’ a certificate granted in form S.T. 73 by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the District to the eligible industrial  unit  holding  eligibility  certificate  which  entitles  it  to  get deferment of sales tax.”  

2.1) Sub-Rule (3) gave an option to an eligible industrial  unit  either  to

avail  benefit  of  tax  exemption  or  deferment.  Sub-Rule  (4)  dealt  with

quantum and period of tax exemption/deferment. Sub-rule (5) dealt with the

2

procedure  for  applying  and  obtaining  eligibility  certificate.  Sub-rule  (8)

dealt  with  withdrawal  of  eligibility  certificate.  Relevant  portions  thereof,

that is, clauses (a) of sub-Rule (4), clauses (a), (b) and (h) of sub-rule (5)

and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (8) are extracted below :-   

4(a). Subject  to  other  provisions  of  this  rule,  the  benefit  of  tax exemption or deferment shall be given to an eligible industrial unit holding exemption or entitlement certificate, as the case may be to the extent, for the period, from year to year in various zones from the date of commercial production or from the date of issue of entitlement/exemption certificate as may be opted, as under :  

Quantum and period of tax exemption/tax deferment :-

(i) New Industrial Units.

Name of  the  Zone and the  area  comprised therein

Small Scale Medium  Scale/large scale

Time Limit

Zone  ‘B’  comprising areas  other  than  Zones ‘A’ and ‘C’

125% of fixed capital investment  

100%  of  fixed  capital investment  but  not exceeding Rs.1.5 crores

7 years

Provided that in the case of exemption, the benefit shall extend to tax on gross turn over and in the case of deferment, it shall extend to tax on the taxable turn over of goods manufactured by the unit.  

xxxxxx

5(a). Every Eligible Industrial Unit which is desirous of availing benefit under this Rule  shall make an application in Form ST-70 in triplicate along with  attested  copies   of  the  documents  mentioned  therein  to  the General Manager, District Industries Centre within 90 days of the date of its going into commercial production or the date of coming into force of this  rule  whichever  is  later.  No  application  shall  be  entertained  if  not preferred  within  time.  An  application  with  incomplete  or  incorrect particulars including the documents required to be attached therewith shall  be  deemed as  having  not  been made if  the  applicant  fails  to complete it on an opportunity afforded to him in this behalf.  

3

5(b). Applications  from  small  scale  units  will  be  considered  by  the Lower Level Screening Committee and those from Medium/Large scale units by the Higher Level Screening Committee.  

xxxxxx

5(h). The Eligibility Certificate will be issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre in cases approved by the Lower Level Screening Committee and by the Director of Industries or any officer nominated by him not below the rank of Additional Director in cases approved by the Higher Level Screening Committee normally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt  of the application in  the office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre. The certificate shall be valid from the date of commercial  production or from the date of issue of entitlement exemption certificate as the case may be for a period as laid down under sub-rule  (4)  unless  cancelled  or  withdrawn.  A  copy  of  the  Eligibility Certificate  shall  also  be  sent  to  the  Deputy  Excise  and  Taxation Commissioner concerned.  

xxxxxx

8(a). The eligibility certificate granted to an industrial unit shall be liable to be withdrawn at any time during its currency by the appropriate screening committee, in the following circumstances –  

(i) if  it is discovered that it has been obtained by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation,  misstatement  or  concealment  of  material facts;  

(ii) discontinuance of its business by the unit or closing down of its business for a continuous period exceeding six months except in case of fire, flood and other natural calamities, riots, strike or lock- out which in the opinion of the committee concerned is beyond the control of the unit;  

(iii) disposal or transfer by the unit of any of its fixed assets adversely affecting its manufacturing or production capacity :

Provided that no order of withdrawal of the eligibility certificate shall be made without  affording a reasonable opportunity of  being heard to  the affected unit.  

8(b). When  the  eligibility  certificate  is  withdrawn,  the  exemption/ entitlement certificate shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the 1st day of its validity  and the unit shall be liable to payment of tax, interest or penalty under the  Act  as if  no entitlement  certificate  had ever  been granted to it.

         (emphasis supplied)

4

2.2) Thus, small scale industries requiring an eligibility certificate had to

apply in the prescribed form (Form ST-70) with an affidavit to the General

Manager, District  Industries Centre for consideration by the Lower Level

Screening Committee (‘LLSC’ for short).  Para (3) of the application form

for Eligibility Certificate  required the  applicant  to  produce the following

annexures with the application:

(i) Certificate  from  Chartered  Accountant  regarding  estimated liability of sales tax for the period which application is made.  

(ii) Certificate from the Chartered Accountant regarding fixed assets on the date of commercial production including the assets of the unit as erected at site and paid for within 60 days to commercial production.  

(iii) Latest  copy  of  partnership  deed/Memorandum  and  Articles  of Association, list of Directors and 10 major share-holders/partners.  

(iv) Copy  of  the  power  of  attorney  or  certified  copy  of  resolution passed by the Board of Directors authorizing a particular person to apply for the grant of eligibility certificate.  

(v) In  case  of  agricultural  land  permission  from  the  authority concerned for  converting  the same for  non-agricultural  use; and  

(vi) Copy  of  Registration  No./Letter  of  Intent/Industrial  Licence/ DGTD Registration.  

                                                                             (emphasis supplied)

5

2.3) It is  evident  from requirement No. (v) that  where agricultural  land

was used for the non-agricultural purpose of constructing or putting up an

industrial unit, such change in land use had to be permitted/certified by the

Town  and  Country  Planning  Development  by  issue  of  a  No  Objection

Certificate/Change  of  Land  Use  Certificate  (‘NOC/CLU  Certificate’  for

short).

Civil Appeal No.1973/2006

3. The first respondent (for short ‘respondent’), a small scale industry,

was  registered  as  a  dealer  under  the  Act.  The  respondent  made  an

application  dated  14.11.1995 to  the  General  Manager,  District  Industries

Centre,  Panipat  in  the  prescribed form (ST-70) for grant  of an eligibility

certificate and enclosed therewith the following annexures :  

(1) Application form in prescribed format. (2) Option letter seeking exemption to be given from the date of

Commercial Production. (3) Affidavit duly attested by a First Class Magistrate. (4) Chartered  Accountant’s  Certificate  regarding Fixed Assets  at

site. (5) Certificate  from  Chartered  Accountant  regarding  projected

Sales Tax to be exempted for the period of eligibility. (6) Copy of Resolution.  (7) Memorandum and Article of Association and list of Directors. (8) Copy of Permanent SSI Registration. (9) Copy of Registration certificate under the Act.

6

The  respondent  did  not  produce  the  NOC/CLU certificate,  which  was  a

document to be produced, if the land was an agricultural land (Sl. No. (v) of

list of annexures to be produced, as per the prescribed application form).

The  application  was  processed  and  on  21.5.1996,  the  Lower  Level

Screening  Committee  resolved  to  grant  the  eligibility  certificate  to  the

respondent.  In  pursuance  of  it,  an  eligibility  certificate  was  issued  on

12.6.1996 stipulating the period of eligibility as from 1.9.1995 to 31.8.2002

for  availing  exemption  from  payment  of  tax  of  Rs.41,94,722/-.  The

respondent accordingly availed the exemption.    

4. The LLSC at its meeting held on 19.6.1997 decided to withdraw the

eligibility certificate issued to the respondent, and the said withdrawal was

communicated to the respondent, by the District Industries Centre, by letter

dated 30.6.1997. That was challenged by the respondent in CWP No.11383

of 1997. The High Court by judgment dated 22.12.1997 allowed the said

petition and quashed the  withdrawal of the eligibility certificate without

notice  or  opportunity  of  hearing  as  illegal,  reserving  liberty  to  the  State

government to proceed afresh in the matter after affording an opportunity to

the respondent to show cause against the proposed action.  

7

5. Thereafter the District Industries Centre, Panipat issued a show-cause

notice dated 4.3.1998 proposing to withdraw the eligibility certificate on the

ground that the respondent had not complied with the basic requirement of

furnishing a NOC/CLU Certificate from the Town and Country Planning

Department for change of land use along with its application in Form ST-

70. The respondent sent a reply dated 26.3.1988 stating that as its unit was

situated  in  an  area  surrounded  by a  large  number  of  factories,  the  area

should be considered as a non-agricultural area. It also contended that the

department was not earlier insisting upon the production of such NOC/CLU

certificate if the industry was situated in an area, where several industries

were situated. The LLSC gave a hearing on 3.11.1998 to the respondent.

During the hearing, the respondent’s Director was informed that the District

Town  Planner,  Panipat  on  verification  had  informed  the  LLSC that  the

respondent’s  unit  fell  in  an  area  where,  for  setting  up  an  industry,  a

NOC/CLU certificate was  required from the Town Planning Department.

The respondent’s director admitted that respondent had not obtained such

NOC/CLU Certificate.  The LLSC therefore took a decision to withdraw the

eligibility  certificate  issued  to  the  respondent  for  non-production  of

NOC/CLU  certificate.  The  General  Manager,  District  Industries  Centre,

8

Panipat,  by  letter  dated  26.11.1998  informed  the  respondent  about  the

decision of LLSC to withdraw the eligibility certificate.  The appeal filed by

the respondent against the said decision was rejected by the Higher Level

Screening Committee by order dated 1.7.1999. The respondent challenged

the  said  decision  in  CWP 13865/2000.   The  High  Court  by order  dated

10.10.2000 directed the appellant  authority to hear  the appeal  and pass a

fresh order.  The appeal was heard again and dismissed on 6.2.2001. The

appellate authority noted that in spite of several opportunities being granted,

the respondent had failed to produce the NOC/CLU Certificate.  It further

held  that  in  view  of  the  non-production  of  NOC/CLU  certificate,  the

eligibility  certificate  issued  to  the  respondent  was  void  ab  initio.  The

respondent challenged the said withdrawal of the eligibility certificate and

the  order  of  the  appellate  authority  in  CWP No.9545 of  2001.  The  said

petition was allowed by order dated 10.12.2002. The High Court held that

the eligibility certificate once granted could be withdrawn only in one of the

three circumstances enumerated in clause (a) of Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 28A;

and as non-production of NOC/CLU certificate was not a ground on which

the eligibility certificate could be withdrawn under the said provision, the

withdrawal was illegal and not justified.  

9

6. The  said  order  is  challenged  in  this  appeal  by  special  leave.  The

Appellant has urged the following contentions:  

(i) The  grounds  for  withdrawal  of  an  eligibility  certificate,

enumerated  in  clause  (a)  of  sub-rule  8  are  not  exhaustive.  The

power  to  withdraw an eligibility  certificate  on  valid  grounds  is

implied  in  the  power  to  grant  the  certificate,  having  regard  to

section  19  of  the  Punjab  General  Clauses  Act.  Therefore,  the

eligibility  certificate  could  be  withdrawn  for  any  valid  reason,

even if such reason was not enumerated in clause (a) of sub-rule 8. (ii) Having regard to the law relating to town and country planning, no

agricultural land or land in green belt could be used for industrial

purposes without obtaining a NOC/CLU certificate. Therefore, the

prescribed  application  form for  eligibility certificate  specifically

required  the  applicants  to  produce  the  NOC/CLU certificate  to

ensure  that  the  industry  does  not  violate  the  relevant  law;  and

where such a certificate is not produced, the industrial unit is not

entitled to an eligibility certificate. Where an eligibility certificate

had been wrongly issued on account of the small  scale industry

suppressing  the  fact  the  land  where  its  unit  is  situated  is

agricultural  land,  it  is  liable  to  be  withdrawn  along  with  all

consequential  financial  benefits  extended  under  the  State

Industrial Policy.  (iii) The High Court,  in rendering the impugned judgment ignored a

binding decision  of  a  Co-ordinate  Bench in  Nice  Spinners  Pvt.

Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana  – (121 STC 456), wherein it was held

that  the  requirement  regarding  production  of  NOC/CLU

10

certificate,  contained  in  Form  No.ST-70  prescribed  under  the

Rules was a mandatory requirement.

7. On the contentions urged, the following two questions arise for our

consideration :  

(i) Whether  an  eligibility  certificate  issued  under  sub-rule  (5)  of Rule  28A  could  be  withdrawn  on  a  ground  other  than  those specified in clause (a) of sub-rule 8 of Rule 28A.

(ii) Whether in this case, withdrawal can be said to be on any of the grounds mentioned under clause (a) of sub-rule 8 of rule 28A.

Re : Question (i) :  

8. Sub-rule (8) provided for withdrawal of the eligibility certificate in

three specific circumstances mentioned in clause (a) thereof. Clause (b) of

sub-rule (8) provided that where the eligibility certificate is withdrawn, the

exemption/entitlement certificate shall be deemed to have been withdrawn

from the first  date of its  validity and the unit  becomes liable to pay tax,

interest and penalty as if no entitlement certificate has ever been granted to

it. This penal provision was attracted only when the withdrawal was on any

of the grounds mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (8). It is not possible to

hold that  the penal  consequences  under  clause (b)  of  sub-rule  (8)  would

11

apply even where the specified circumstances/grounds in clause (a) of sub-

rule (8) did not exist or occur. Where the rules prescribe the conditions for

grant of a benefit  and also the conditions for withdrawal of such benefit,

then the benefit can be withdrawn only if any of the conditions prescribed

exist,  and  not  otherwise,  unless  the  provision  relating  to

withdrawal/rescission also reserves discretion to the authority concerned to

exercise the power of withdrawal wherever warranted.  

9. The appellant placed reliance upon section 19 of the Punjab General

Clauses Act, which provides that where any State Act confers a power to

issue a notification or orders, rules or bye-laws, then that power includes a

power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and

conditions (if any) to add to amend, vary or rescind any notification, orders,

rules  or  bye-laws  so  issued.  The  question  is,  where  the  rules  contain  a

specific provision as to the circumstances in which the power to grant an

eligibility  certificate  can  be  exercised  and  the  specific  circumstances  in

which  the  eligibility  certificate  once  granted  can  be  withdrawn,  whether

reliance can be placed upon the implied power to rescind or withdraw under

section 19 of the General Clauses Act, de hors the specific provision in the

statute.  Section 19  of  the  Punjab General  Clauses  Act  (corresponding to

12

section  21  of  General  Clauses  Act,  1897)  merely  embodies  a  rule  of

construction  which  can  be  displaced  to  the  extent,  the  provisions,  the

scheme and the object of any particular statute indicate a contrary intention.

It is  intended to apply only where the rules in question do not  contain a

specific provision governing or regulating the matter. The question whether

or  not  the  said  rule  of  construction  (the  implied  power  to  rescind  or

withdraw an order) would apply or not, will depend on the subject matter,

context and the effect of the relevant provisions of the statute/rules under

which the order is issued. Therefore, the scheme, its object and all relevant

provisions have to be examined to decide the application of the said rule of

construction. See :  The State of Bihar v. D.N.Ganguly [1959 SCR 1191],

State of Kerala v. K.G.Madhavan Pillai [1988 (4) SCC 669], H.C.Suman v.

Rehabilitation  Ministry  Employees’  Cooperative  House  Building  Society

Ltd. [1991 (4) SCC 485], and  Justice G.P. Singh’s principles of Statutory

Interpretation (11th Edition), pages 999 & 1000.  

10. As noticed above, clause (a) of sub-rule (8) specifically enumerated

three circumstances in which eligibility certificate is liable to be withdrawn.

They  were  :  (i)  discovery  that  the  certificate  had  been  obtained  by  the

applicant by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, misstatement or concealment

13

of material  facts;  (ii)  discontinuance/closing down of the business by the

holder  of  the  certificate;  and (iii)  disposal/transfer  of fixed assets  by the

holder of the certificate, adversely affecting its manufacturing or production

capacity.  It  did  not  empower  the  appropriate  screening  committee  to

withdraw the eligibility certificate under any other circumstance. Nor did it

confer  a  general  power  upon  the  screening  committee  to  withdraw  the

certificate. It however required that such withdrawal shall be after affording

a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected unit. Clause (b) of sub-

rule  (8)  prescribed  certain  penal  consequences  when  the  eligibility

certificate  was  withdrawn.  Obviously,  penal  consequences  could  not  be

visited upon an assessee on grounds or circumstances which were neither

specified  in  the  rules,  nor  stipulated  in  the  eligibility  certificate.  The

legislative intent as can be gathered from the scheme contained in the rules

was  that  the  eligibility  certificate  could  be  withdrawn  only  in  the

circumstances  enumerated  in  clause  (a)  of  sub-rule  (8)  and  for  no  other

reason.  As  a  result,  we  reject  the  contention  of  the  appellant  that  the

eligibility  certificate  issued  under  sub-rule  (5)  of  rule  28A  could  be

withdrawn, if the circumstances warrant, on a ground other than the ground

specified in clause (a) of sub-rule (8).  

14

11. The  contention  that  High  Court  failed  to  follow the  decision  of  a

co-ordinate Bench in  Nice Spinners (supra) does not have any merit.  Nice

Spinners dealt with a situation where the request for an eligibility certificate

was rejected under sub-rule (5) and did not deal with a situation relating to

withdrawal of an eligibility certificate already granted. Once an eligibility

certificate  was  granted,  it  can  only  be  withdrawn  in  the  circumstances

mentioned  in  clause  (a)  of  sub-rule  (8).  Therefore,  ‘non-production  of

NOC/CLU certificate’ by itself cannot be a ground for withdrawal as it is

not  one of the grounds/circumstances mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule

(8).

Re : Question (ii)

12. But the matter does not end there. The next question will be whether

the non-production of NOC/CLU Certificate had any bearing on the three

circumstances or grounds for withdrawal enumerated in clause (a) of sub-

rule (8). Circumstances (ii) and (iii) mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (8)

do not admittedly apply as this is neither a case of discontinuance/closure of

business nor a case of disposal of fixed assets. What therefore remains to be

considered  is  whether  it  can  be  said  that  the  eligibility  certificate  was

15

obtained by the respondent by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, misstatement

or concealment of facts.

13.  The prescribed form of application required the applicant to produce

certain documents as annexures to the application. Requirements (i) to (iv)

and (vi) of the prescribed form (extracted in para 2.3 above) were specific.

Requirement (v) was slightly different. It required “in case of agricultural

land”, permission from the authority concerned for converting the same for

non-agricultural use. This meant that where the unit  was situated in non-

agricultural  urban  area,  there  was  no  need  to  produce  the  NOC/CLU

certificate.  But, if the industrial unit was situated in an agricultural land,

then a NOC/CLU Certificate was required to be produced.  The respondent

did  not  produce  the  NOC/CLU  certificate.   Nor  did  it  disclose  in  its

application that its unit was situated in an agricultural land.  It merely gave a

list of the documents produced, where NOC/CLU certificate did not find a

place.  It  remained  silent  about  requirement  (v).   This  amounted  to

suppression  and  concealment  of  a  material  fact  or  an  implied

misrepresentation  that  NOC/CLU  certificate  was  not  required  to  be

produced.  Where  the  NOC/CLU  Certificate  was  not  produced,  and  the

applicant did not state that the land was agricultural land, there was every

16

likelihood of the concerned authority proceeding on the assumptions that

the  industry  was  not  situated  in  an  agricultural  land  and  therefore  the

applicant was not required to produce the NOC/CLU Certificate.  But if the

unit was situated in an agricultural land, it was mandatory to either produce

the NOC/CLU Certificate  under  requirement  (v)  or  disclose  the fact  that

though the unit was situated in an agricultural land, it did not possess the

required  certificate.  The  suppression  of  the  fact  that  the  land  was

agricultural was a material concealment and misrepresentation which led the

LLSC to assume that the applicant had fulfilled the legal requirements.  If

the fact that the land was situated in an agricultural land had been disclosed,

the  eligibility  certificate,  would  not  have  been  issued,  in  the  absence  of

NOC/CLU  Certificate.  Therefore,  while  the  non-production  of  the

‘NOC/CLU  Certificate’  by  itself  may  not  be  a  ground  to  withdraw  the

eligibility certificate under sub-rule (8),  the omission to disclose that  the

land was an agricultural land and that it did not possess or that it was not

able to produce the NOC/CLU Certificate, was a concealment, misstatement

and  misrepresentation  of  a  material  fact.   When  it  was  discovered  on

enquiry  that  the  land  was  agricultural  land  and  the  respondent  did  not

produce the NOC/CLU Certificate, the department was entitled to withdraw

the eligibility certificate under clause (a)(i) of Sub-Rule (8).

17

14. A faint attempt was made to contend that the ground of rejection was

‘non-production  of  NOC/CLU  Certificate’  and  not  suppression  or  mis-

representation of a material fact relating to nature of land.  There is no merit

in  this  contention.  If  the  respondent  had  disclosed  that  the  land  was an

agricultural land, but failed to produce the NOC/CLU Certificate, and if the

department had issued the eligibility certificate, then it might not have been

possible for the department to withdraw the Certificate.  In such an event,

the  assessee   could  have  contended  that  it  had  not  suppressed  any

information  and  the  requirement  was  waived,  or  that  it  was  not  being

insisted  upon  and  that  therefore  non-production  was  not  a  ground  for

cancellation.  But where the NOC/CLU Certificate was required because the

unit was situated in an agricultural land, but the applicant suppressed the

fact that the land where the unit was situated was an agricultural land, to

avoid production of the NOC/CLU Certificate, then it is a concealment and

mis-representations of a material fact, which squarely falls under Rule 8(a)

(i).  When  the  eligibility  certificate  is  withdrawn  for  non-production  of

NOC/CLU Certificate, and the  fact that land was agricultural land was not

disclosed, the withdrawal can be traced to the ground (i) under sub-rule 8(a)

(i) of Rule 28A.

18

15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High

Court  is  set  aside  and  the  challenge  to  the  withdrawal  of  eligibility

certificate is rejected.   

Civil  Appeal  Nos.1976/2006,  1982/2006,  1983/2006,  1986/2006  and 350/2007.

16. The  facts  in  these  appeals  are  similar  to  those  in  Civil  Appeal

No.1973/2006. In all these cases also, the eligibility certificates issued to the

respective  respondent  was  withdrawn  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not

produce  the  NOC/CLU  certificate.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  writ

petitions filed by the respective respondent in these appeals (by order dated

2.2.2004  in  CWP  No.79/2004,  order  dated  9.12.2003  in  CWP

No.15989/2003, order  dated 7.1.2003 in WP No.13058/2002, order  dated

7.1.2003  in  CWP  No.11967/2002  and  order  dated  10.2.2004  in  CWP

No.9715/2003)  by  following  its  decision  dated  10.12.2002  in  Baldev

Spinners  Private  Ltd.  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  CA  No.1973/2006

considered above.  These  appeals  also stand allowed in  terms of  CA No.

1973/2006.

………………………….J. (R V Raveendran)

19

New Delhi; ……………………….J. February 25, 2009. (P Sathasivam)       

20