TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms broad scope of activities covered under Labour Welfare Fund Act</h1> <h3>Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. Versus Limestone & Dolomite Mines Welfare & Cess Commissioner</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the interpretation of Section 3 of the Limestone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972, as adopted by the High Court. ... - Issues:Interpretation of Section 3 of the Limestone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972.Analysis:The case involved the appellant, a government-owned company extracting limestone for construction work. The appellant challenged the requirement to pay excise duty under Section 3 of the Limestone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972. The section mandated a duty of excise on limestone used for specific purposes related to manufacturing activities. The key issue was the interpretation of the provision in Section 3 regarding the scope of activities covered under 'for any purpose in connection with the manufacture of iron, steel.' The High Court interpreted the provision broadly, encompassing activities with a nexus to the manufacture of iron and steel.The Supreme Court analyzed the provision and the purpose of the Act, emphasizing the need to interpret it in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent of building a Labour Welfare Fund. The Court noted that a narrow interpretation excluding limestone from the manufacture of iron and steel would render the provision ineffective. Considering the broad range of industries covered under the provision, the Court held that limestone used for activities related to manufacturing commodities, including iron and steel, should attract excise duty as specified in the Act. The Court highlighted the purposive interpretation to uphold the legislative intent and ensure the effectiveness of the welfare fund.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the interpretation adopted by the High Court, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The Court emphasized that the excise duty imposed under the Act serves the purpose of building a Labour Welfare Fund and should be construed widely to achieve its intended objective. The judgment reiterated the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent and the overall purpose of the legislation, ensuring effective implementation and fulfillment of the statutory objectives.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
