TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... presented for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty amount. The applicants have made a prayer to dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1,14,28,688/- and also made prayer for setting aside the impugned order. Shri R.K. Habbu, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the stay application. Shri Habbu has pleaded that the duty involved is Rs. 1,14,28,688/- and the period involved is January 1987 to 5-11-1988 and the show cause notice is dated 5-1-1989 which appears on page 61 of the Paper Book. Sh. Habbu has pleaded that the applicants are a job work contractor for the Ministry of Defence. The contract work included various items of civil electrical and mechanical ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods should be capable of being sold in the market. The disputed goods in the present matter are not marketable and cannot be treated as 'goods'. He further argued that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Richardson & Cruddes was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had admitted the appeal filed by M/s. Richardson & Cruddes, Bombay and the same is reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. A67 Tit-Bits SC. On the financial aspect Shri Habbu referred to the Balance Sheet of the applicants for the year ending 31-3-1989 and has pleaded that there is a net profit of Rs. 2,63,14,589/- and this profit is mainly from the other income at Rs. 3,73,95,647/- earned by the applicants. He pleaded that the liquidity position of the appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bu again pleaded for the grant of stay and stated that no excise duty is payable by the applicants. Shri Tayal has referred to the following judgments: (1) Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Collector-1987 (29) E.L.T. 241 (2) Ujagar Paints v. U.O.I. - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 SC (3) Structural! & Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector -1984 (17) E.L.T. 127 CEGAT (4) Orissa Construction Corp. Ltd. v. Collector -1983 (14) E.L.T. 2382 Shri Habbu in reply argued that the above judgments cited by the learned SDR do not help him. 3. We have heard both sides. The facts are not disputed. It is not disputed that the erection was done at site. The facts of the present case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uantum of surplus available for distribution and the need to conserve the funds, the Directors recommend for members approval a dividend of Rs. 20.00 per equity share of Rs. 100 (Rs, 26.66 on an annualised basis). The dividend, if approved, will be paid on and after 16th October 1989. The said dividend distribution would absorb an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-(previous year Rs. 40,00,000). 5. Bonus Shares -Pursuant to the consent received from the Controller of Capital issues, New Delhi, the Board of Directors of the Company allotted on 15th April 1989, 200, 000 Numbers Equity Shares of Rs. 100 each to the members in the ratio of 1:1. The said bonus shares rank peri passu with the existing shares except that they shall be entitled to the div....