1993 (3) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder the Act by the description 'tobacco'. Since the respondent-firm refuted the liability to pay market fee mainly on the ground that Zarda was a different commodity though manufactured out of tobacco, it resisted the notice. Since the payment of market fee was insisted upon and threatening notices were issued to the respondent-firm, a writ petition was moved in the High Court which resulted in acceptance as aforesaid. 3. When the notice afore-referred to was issued, the expression 'agricultural produce' as defined in Section 2(1)(a) was as follows : "Agricultural produce' includes all produce, whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, and forest specified in the Schedule."....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve steps are taken against the respondent-firm in relation to a demand for the post-April 30, 1982 period. Presently, the correctness of the amended provision cannot be judged in this appeal, All what we have to do is to mould the relief and confine the judgment of the High Court as valid up till the date of the amendment and leave the future period from April 30, 1982 onwards in a vacuum to be filled in by the acts of commission or omission of either party, validity of which may have to see the light of another litigation. We make it clear however that any reference reflecting upon the scope and ambit of 'manufacture' employed in the judgment is not to express any opinion on the subject. Thus we mould the relief in favour of the ap....