<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (11) TMI 91 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165479</link>
    <description>Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 requires sugar pricing to be fixed on an industry-wide basis, taking into account the minimum cane price, manufacturing cost, taxes or duty, and a reasonable return on capital employed in the business of manufacturing sugar. The provision is not confined to levy sugar alone, because that would undermine the statutory scheme and the object of balancing the interests of growers, consumers, and manufacturers. On the facts discussed, the Haryana sugar price fixation was found consistent with these statutory criteria and not shown to be arbitrary, so the impugned price order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (11) TMI 91 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165479</link>
      <description>Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 requires sugar pricing to be fixed on an industry-wide basis, taking into account the minimum cane price, manufacturing cost, taxes or duty, and a reasonable return on capital employed in the business of manufacturing sugar. The provision is not confined to levy sugar alone, because that would undermine the statutory scheme and the object of balancing the interests of growers, consumers, and manufacturers. On the facts discussed, the Haryana sugar price fixation was found consistent with these statutory criteria and not shown to be arbitrary, so the impugned price order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>