TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-77
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 21,2014

TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner is a sugar industry engaged in the manufacturing and sale of sugar. Molasses is a necessary bye-product which comes out when sugarcane is crushed for manufacture of sugar. Under the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, it is mandatory for a sugar factory to preserve molasses under Section 5 thereof. The petitioner alleges that on 2nd of April, 2006 a fax message was sent to the authorities as well as a telegraphic message was sent on 3rd April, 2006 intimating them about the auto combustion in steel tank No.6 where 72283 quintals of molasses was stored. It transpires that the authorities, on investigation, issued a show cause notice dated 6th April, 2006 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for violating the provisions of the Adhiniyam as well as Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali, 1974. The petitioner submitted its reply contending that they may be permitted to dispose of the burnt molasses and that the authorities should take a lenient view in the matter.
(2.) Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application dated 12th April, 2006 seeking permission to dispose of the burnt molasses. In the? said letter the petitioner submitted that they will pay administrative charges @ of Rs. 11 per quintal amounting to Rs. 7,95,122/-. Based on the said application, the Excise Commissioner issued an order dated 28th April, 2006 permitting the petitioner to dispose of the burnt molasses upon payment of administrative charges @ Rs. 11.50 per quintal. Based on the said direction, the petitioner applied for issuance of Form MF-4 which is prescribed in Rule 25 of the Nimayavali of 1974 which was duly issued and the molasses was disposed of.? Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for refund of the administrative charges.
(3.) We have heard Sri A.B. Mathur the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey the learned for the excise department.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.