M/S. GOPAL ZARDA UDYOG AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

             MIS. GOPAL ZARDA UDYOG AND ORS.                                A
                             v.
          COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

                          SEPTEMBER 30, 2005

    [S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]                B

      Central Excise Act, I944: Section I I-A(J) proviso.

       Chewing Tobacco-Tariff sub-heading 2404.4912404.40-- "Additive
mixture "-Excisability of-Extended period of limitation-Invoking of- C
Demand of duty-Assessee was engaged in manufacture of Chewing Tobacco
(Final Product) falling under sub-heading 2404.40 of Tariff Act-In the
manufacture of the final product, the assessee was using an intermediate
product known as 'additive mixture '-It was alleged that the assessee
clandestinely manufactured and cleared 'additive mixture' falling under sub- D
heading 2404.40 in contravention of provisions of the Act and the Rules with
intention to evade duty/assessment-It was found that the 'additive mixture'
was a kimam, which was manufactured by mixing sada kimam with spices,
menthol, aromatic chemical and perfumes-It was found that the said kimam
was marketable as a distinct identifiable product-Held: For invoking the
extended period of limitation, duty should not have been paid or short-levied E
or erroneously refunded on account offraud, collusion or willful suppression
or misstatement offacts or willful contravention of the Act or the Rules with
the intention to evade payment of duty-Jn the present case, the assessee had
no intention to evade payment of duty-Hence, the extended period of
limitation cannot be invoked under the proviso to S. I I-A(J)-However, the F
'additive mixture' (kimam) was excisable and classifiable under sub-heading
2404.4912404.40 of the Tariff Act-Central Excise Tariff Act, I985-Central
Excise Rules, 1944.

      The appellants-assessees were engaged in the manufacture of Chewing
Tobacco (Final Product) falling under sub-heading 2404.40 of the Central G
Tariff Act, 1985. In the manufacture of the said final product, the appellants
were using an intermediate product known as 'additive mixture'. It was alleged
that the appellants were clandestinely manufacturing and clearing 'additive
mixture' falling under sub-heading 2404.49 (up to 22.7.1996) and falling

                                    829                                     H
    830                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   under sub-heading 2404.40 after 22.7.1996, in contravention of the provisions
    of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944 with intention
    to evade duty/assessment.

          On the question of excisability, the Commissioner found that the
    'additive mixture' was a kimam, which was manufactured by mixing sada
B   kimam with spices, menthol, aromatic chemical and perfumes etc. Further,
    the Commissioner found that the said kimam was marketable as a distinct
    identifiable product. Accordingly, demand of duty was raised on the appellants
    and the department also invoked the extended period of limitation under the
    proviso to Section 11-A(l) of the Excise Act.

C         The appellants filed an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold
    (Control) Appellate Tribunal which held that the said 'additive mixture' was a
    kimam and that it was excisable under sub-heading 2404.49/2404.40 of the
    Tariff Act. The Tribunal also held that the department rightly invoked the
    extended period oflimitation under the proviso to Section 11-A(l) of the Excise
D   Act. Hence the appeal.

          The following question arose before the Court:-

          Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
    justified in holding that the 'additive mixture' processed by the three
    appellants was excisable and classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2404.49
E   of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that the department was right in       .•
    invoking the extended period oflimitation under the proviso to Section 11-
    A(l) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?

          Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

F         HELD: 1.1. For invoking the extended period oflimitation, duty should
    not have been paid or short-levied or erroneously refunded on account of fraud,
    collusion or willful suppression or misstatement of facts or willful
    contravention of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Central Excise Rules,
    1944 with the intention to evade payment of duty. These ingredients postulate
    a positive act, therefore, failure to pay duty or to take out a licence is not
G   necessary due to fraud, collusion etc. Likewise, suppression of facts is not a
    failure to disclose the legal consequences of a certain provision.
                                                                 1836-G-H; 837-AI

       Dharampal Satyapal v. CCE, (2005) ELT 241, Padmini Products v. CCE,
H (1989) 43 ELT 195 and. Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE, (1995) 75 ELT 721,
        GOPALZARDA UDYOGv. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [KAPADIA,).]    831



      1.2. Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, it is found
that the substance of the show cause notice in the present case was based on
clandestine removal of the kimam from the units of the assessees with an
intention to evade payment of excise duty or assessment. The show cause
notices also alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules B
on the part of the appellants in failing to get their units registered under
Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 174 of the Rules. However, stock
verification was carried out by the department inside the premises of the
appellants by the anti-evasiTin department as also by the jurisdictional central
excise officer. The officers of the department visited the various premises of C
the appellants. They conducted physical stock checking. They saw the
registers maintained by the appellants in respect of different types of 'additive
mixtures'. All the registers were checked and verified on that day. There is
no finding in the present case that the appellants did not answer the queries
made by the department Hence, there was no intent to evade payment of duty.
                                                              (838-A-B, F-G)     D
      2. Therefore, the "additive mixture" (kimam) was excisable and
classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2404.49/2404.40 of the 1985 Tariff
Act. However, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation under    E
the proviso to Section 11-A(l) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (839-B-C)

        Dharampal Satyapal v. CCE, (2005) ELT 241, relied on.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5747-5749 of
2000.

      From the Judgment and Order dated I. I 0. 99 of the Customs, Excise and
                                                                                 F
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in F.O. Nos. 846-851/99-D in A.
Nos. E/2187-89of1998-D.

      Joseph Vellapally, Vivek Kohli, Subramonium Prasad and Manoj Gupta
for the Appellants.
                                                                                 G
        A. Subba Rao, Rupesh Kumar and P. Panneswaran for the Respondent

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      KAPADIA, J. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
tribunal was justified in holding that the 'additive mixture' processed by the   H
    832                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A three appellants herein was excisable and classifiable under chapter sub-
    heading 2404.49 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that the department was
    right in invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to
    section 11 A( I) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the
    Act").

B         .Briefly, the facts of the case are that Mis Hari Chand Shri Gopal, M/s
    Gopal Industries and M/s Gopal Zarda Udyog were the three assessees
    engaged in the manufacture of Chewing Tobacco (Final Product) falling under
    sub-heading 2404.40 of Tariff Act, 1985. In the manufacture of the final
    product, they were using an inter-mediate product known as "additive mixture".
C   An intelligence was collected by the officers of the preventive wing of the
    Commissionerate to the effect that the appellants were manufacturing the said
    "additive mixture" without obtaining registration certificate under section 6 of
    the 1944 Act read with rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that they
    have been removing the said goods clandestinely from their factories situated
    in Delhi; that they were unauthorisedly clearing the said goods under transfer
D   challans to their factories in UP and HP (where the final product was
    manufactured). On the basis of the aforestated intelligence, various premises
    belonging to the three appellants were searched. Enquiries were also made
    from traders dealing in the kimams as well as from the manufacturers and the
    suppliers of the raw material. The partners of the three appellant firms were
E   also examined. The department was informed that the said "additive mixture"
    consisted of various ingredients like raw-kimam, menthol, aromatic chemicals,
    spices, gulab jal, attar and perfumes etc. The process of preparing additive
    mixture was explained in detail by the partners. On the aforestated
    investigations, three separate show-cause notices were issued, all dated
    25.3.1997. In the said show-cause notices, it was alleged that the appellants
F   were clandestinely manufacturing and clearing additive mixture falling under
    sub-heading 2404.49 (up to 22.7.1996) and falling under sub-heading 2404.40
    on and after 22.7.1996, in contravention of the provisions of the said 1944 Act
    and the Rules with intention to evade duty/assessment. The show-cause
    notices further record that on 15.10.1996 M/s Gopal Industries and M/s Hari
G   Chand Shri Gopal voluntarily obtained registration certificates for the
    manufacture of the said mixture under rule 174. The three show-cause notices
    were in respect of the period 18.3.1994 to 26.9.1996 under the proviso to
    section I IA(!) of the 1944 Act. In the case of M/s Gopal Zarda Udyog, the
    department demanded duty for the period 18.3 .1994 to 15.4.1995; in the case
    ofHari Chand Shri Gopal, the demand was for the period 14.6.1995 to 24.9.1996;
H   but in the case of Mis Gopal Industries, the department demanded duty for
      GOPALZARDAUDYOG;,_ COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE[KAPADIA,J.]           833

the period 16.6.1995 to 26.9.1996.                                               A
       On ~ated2 I. I l.1997, re6lies were given to the three show-cause notices.
 The appellants submitted that they were engaged in the activity of
manufacturing chewing tobacco, which was an excisable product on which
they have been paying duty. In the reply, the appellants explained at length
the process by which the additive mixture came to be produced in the three B
factories in Delhi. According to the appellants, the additive.mixture was not
a final product; \that it was a transient product; it was not noticeable to the
naked eye and that it was unsaleable and useless for any other purpose.
According to the appellants, the composition of additive mixture was known
only to the blender. According to the appellants, the entire process was C
shrouded in secrecy and was known only to the blender. In the said reply,
the appellants alleged that the details of the process of manufacturing the
final product as well as the formulation of the additive mixture at the
 intermediate stage was known to the department since 1992-93; that their
records and registers stood verified by the department since 1992-93; that the
said records indicated the receipt and utilization of the additive mixture in the D
manufacture of the branded chewing tobacco (final product) and that the said
records were duly checked by the department from time to time. That, the
partners of the appellants were also examined in 1992 by Superintendent of
Central Excise, New Delhi, when the entire process of mixing and blending of
the raw-material and the status of transfer of the additive mixture from their E
units in New Delhi to their factories in UP and HP was explained. In support
of what is stated above, the appellants placed reliance on the panchnama
dated 20. l 0.1992, under which their units were searched by the department
and which indicated the stock position of the raw-material, additive mixture
and the branded chewing tobacco. According to the department, in 1993, the
Superintendent of Central Excise had personally visited their factories and F
had also studied in detail the process of manufacturing the branded chewing
tobacco. The appellants further contended that there was no intent to evade
as the said mixture was non-dutiable. In this connection, they relied on the
notification no. 121 /94-CE dated 11.8.1994 under which additive mixture (input)
falling under chapter sub-heading 2404.49 captively consumed in the G
manufacture of chewing tobacco (final product) stood exempted from payment
of duty. That, the department had not denied their entitlement to exemption
under the said notification in the show-cause notices. That, in fact, after
seizure the said mixture was released/cleared under the above· notification
without levy of duty and, therefore, the department was not entitled to invoke
the extended period of limitation.                                                H
    834                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          By order dated 20.5.1998, the commissioner confirmed the demand. On
    the question of excisability, the commissioner found that the additive mixture
    was a kimam, which was manufactured by mixing sada kimam with spices,
    menthol, aromatic chemical and perfumes etc. Further, the commissioner found
    that the said kimam was marketable as a distinct identifiable product. In this
    connection, he relied upon the statements recorded under section 14 of
B   Mis. Globe Traders, Mis Laxmi Fragrances (P) Ltd., Mis Guiab Gandhi Tobacco
    Co. etc. That, after 1994, the said mixture (kimam) became classifiable under
    chapter sub-heading 2404.49/2404.40 and that despite the said changes, the
    appellants failed to get their units registered with the department. That, the
    evidence brought forth by the appellants regarding inspection of their factories
C   pertained to the years 1992 and 1993, during which period the said mixture
    was not chargeable to duty. That, the appellants were in the business of
                                                                                       -
    manufacturing and marketing of chewing tobacco and, therefore, the fact that
    kimam was chargeable to duty must have been in their knowledge and that
    by bringing the above facts on record, the department had discharged its
    initial burden of proving the conditions mentioned in the proviso to section
D   I IA(!) of the Act.

          Aggrieved by the decision of the commissioner dated 20.5.1998, the
    matter was carried in appeal by the assessees to the Customs, Excise and Gold
    (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the
E   tribunal"). The appeals filed by the appellants herein were heard along with
    the appeals filed by Mis Dharampal Satyapal.

         By judgment dated I.I 0.1999, the tribunal held that the said additive
  mixture was a kimam; that it was excisable under chapter sub-heading 2404.49/
  2404.40 of 1985 Tariff Act and that the appellants had failed to disclose their
F activities in their Delhi Units. In this connection, the tribunal expressly relied
  upon the statement of Shailender Kumar Aggarwal, partner of Mis Gopal
  Industries dated 28.9. I 996 recorded under section 14 of the Act in which he
  has stated that M/s Gopal Industries did not obtain registration certificates
  under a mistaken belief that the activity of mixing/blending did not constitute
  "manufacture". The tribunal further found that the manufacturing activities in
G Delhi units were suppressed from the department; that the appellants had
  failed to obtain excise registration; and that the appellants had not fully
  complied with the procedure of chapter X of I944 rules subject to which the
  benefit of exemption under notification no. 121/94-CE was available. The
  tribunal thereafter took note of the various decisions of the tribunal which has
H taken the view that even substantial compliance of the chapter X procedure
     GOPALZARDA UDYOG". COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [KAPADIA, J.]     835
was sufficient for exemption and accordingly, the tribunal remitted the matter A
to the commissioner to ascertain the question of substantial compliance.

     On remand, the commissioner came to the conclusion vide his order
dated 16. 7.2002 that there was no substantial compliance of the procedure
under chapter X of 1944 rules.
                                                                               B
       Aggrieved by the said decision dated 16.7.2002, the appellants herein
preferred appeals to the tribunal. By judgment and order dated 7.7.2003, the
tribunal held that there was substantial compliance of chapter X as there was
evidence on record indicating receipt and utilization of additive mixture (input)
in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco (final product) and following
the judgment of this court in the case of Thermax Private Ltd. v. Collector C
of Customs, reported in (1992) (61) ELT 352, the tribunal held that the said
additive mixture was entitled to exemption under notification no. 121/94-CE.

      Against the said decision of the tribunal dated 7.7.2003, the department
has come to this Court by way of Civil Appeals No. 1878-1880 of 2004, which D
is a matter of separate judgment. Therefore, the present civil appeals are filed
by the assessees on the question of excisability and limitation whereas the
Civil Appeals No. 1878-1880 of 2004 are filed by the department on the
question of compliance of exemption notification no. 121/94-CE.

       At the outset, we may point out that in the case of Dharampal Satyapal E
v. Commissioner ofCentral Excise, New Delhi reported in 2005 (183) ELT 241,
this Court held that the compound manufactured by Mis Dharampal Satyapal
was a kimam which was moved in balties on stock transfer basis to their
branded chewing tobacco factories located in UP and HP constituted
independent, distinct and identifiable product known to the market as such
and, therefore, the said kimam was excisable and classifiable under sub- F
heading 2404.49/2404.40. On the question of limitation, this Court on
examination of facts found that Mis Dharampal Satyapal used to buy from the
market a compound, similar to the compound which it used to manufacture
in its own units, and such similar compound was used in the manufacture of
Tulsi Zafrani Zarda (final product). This court further found that Mis Dharampal G
Satyapal had failed to disclose the existence of their units, they did not
maintain any records under the excise law, they clandestinely manufactured
their compound without informing the department, and in the circumstances,
the department was right in invoking the extended period of limitation. It was
argued on behalf of the assessee in that case that there was no intent to
evade duty as the entire quantity of kimam was captively consumed; that the H
    836                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A assessee was entitled to modvat credit equal to the demand and, therefore,
    the department was not entitled to invoke the extended period. This argument
    was rejected by this Court on the ground that no explanation was given by
    the assessee for not disclosing the affairs of the units in which kimam was
    manufactured; no explanation was given for not getting the units registered
    or licensed; and no explanation was given for failure to maintain the records
B   under the 1944 Act. In the circumstances, this Court found in the case of
    Mis. Dharampal Satyapal total non-compliance of the 1944 rules. This Court
    observed that it was for Mis Dharampal Satyapal to explain the basis of its
    alleged bona fide impression. It was further found in that case that there was
    no evidence of receipt and utilization of the kimam in the manufacture ofTulsi
C   Zafrani Zarda. In the circumstances, this Court dismissed the civil appeals
    filed by Mis Dharampal Satyapal. This court held that the burden to prove
    the defence of bona fides was on the assessee and that the assessee in that
    case, Mis Dharampal Satyapal, had failed to prove its bona fides. However,
    on the question of applicability of notification no. 121194-CE dated 11.8.1994,
    this Court upheld the directions of the tribunal remanding the case back to
D   the commissioner for re-examination. This remand was made by the tribunal
    because it was argued on behalf of Mis Dharampal Satyapal, as by the
    appellants herein, that there was no revenue implication as the assessee was
    entitled to the benefit of the exemption under the notification no. 121194.

E         The main point which arises for determination in these civil appeals is
    whether the department was right in the facts and circumstances of this case
    in invoking the extended period of limitation.

           In the case of Padmini Products v. Collector ofCentral Excise, reported
    in ( 1989) 43 ELT .J 95, this Court held that in a given case where there is a
F   scope for believing that the goods were not excisable and consequently no
    licence was required to be taken then the extended period of limitation was
    inapplicable. Mere failure or negligence on the part of the manufacturer either
    not to take out the licence or not to pay duty in cases where there is a scope
    for doubt, does not attract the extended period of limitation. Unless there is
    evidence that the manufacturer knew that the goods were liable to duty or
G   he was required to take out a licence, there is no scope to invoke the proviso
    to section I IA(I). For invoking the extended period of limitation, duty should 1
    not have been paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded on
    account of fraud, collusion or wilful suppression or mis~statement of facts or
    wilful contravention of the Act or the Rules with the intention to evade
H   payment of duty. These ingredients postulate a positive act, therefore, failure
     GOPALZARDA UDYOG1·. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [KAPADIA,).]    837
to pay duty or to take out a licence is not necessary due to fraud, collusion A
etc. Likewise, suppression of facts is not a failure to disclose the legal
consequences of a certain provision.

      In case of Mis Dharampal Satyapal, (supra), the assessee used to buy
Lucknowi Kimam from the market from time to time and used the same in the
manufacture of branded chewing tobacco (final product). In the case of B
Mis. Dharampal Satyapal, apart from compound prepared in its unit, it used
to buy Lucknowi Kimam from the market which was similar to the compound
produced by the assessee and the same was cleared to the licensed factories
in UP and HP, where it was diluted and used in the manufacture of Tulsi
Zafrani Zarda. In that matter, the commissioner had recorded a categorical C
finding that the assessee Mis Dharampal Satyapal knew that kimam was liable
to duty and that it was required to obtain 'L-6' licence because Mis Dharampal
Satyapal used to buy Lucknowi Kimam from the other manufacturers, who
used to manufacture Lucknowi Kimam after obtaining registration and the
requisite licence. There is no such finding by the commissioner in the present
case. In the circumstances, on the question of invocation ofextended period D
of limitation, the judgment of this Court in the case of Mis Dharampal
Satyapal (supra) will not apply.

       In the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise,
Bombay reported in (1995) 75 ELT 721, this Court held that so far as fraud and
collusion are concerned, intent to evade duty is built into these words. E
 However, so far as "mis-statement" or "suppression of facts" are concerned,
they are clearly qualified by the word "wilful" preceding the words "mis-
statement or suppression of facts", which means "with the intent to evade
duty". It was further observed that the next set of words in the proviso to
section 1IA(I) which refers to contravention of the provisions of the Act or F
the Rules are qualified by the words "with intent to evade payment of duty".
Therefore, this Court has held that there cannot be a suppression or mis-
statement of fact which is not wilful. Mis-statement or suppression of facts
must be wilful. In that case, on facts, this court found that the assessee was
under a bona fide impression that the value of its product was not includible
in its declaration for the reason that the said product was exempt from duty G
under the notification dated 23.11.1961, because two High Courts have taken
the view that the product was exempt from duty whereas two other High
Courts had taken contra-view. In the aforestated circumstances, this court
held that the mis-statement in the declaration filed by the assessee or the
suppression of facts therein was not wilful.                                   H
    838                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, we find that
  the substance of the show-cause notices issued in the present case was
  based on clandestine removal of the kimam from the units in Delhi with a'n
  intention to evade payment of excise duty or assessment. The show-cause
  notices also alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules
  on the part of the appellants in failing to get their units registered under
B section 6 read with rule 174 of the 1944 Rules. However, we find from the facts
  that on 14.7.1992, stock verification was carried out by the department inside
  the premises of the appellants by anti-evasi9n department as also by the
  jurisdictional central excise officer. On 20.10.1992, the partner of the appellant
  was required to remain present before the Superintendent, Central Excise, New
C Delhi. His statement was recorded under section 14. In that statement, he has
  stated that in their units in New Delhi, there were three rooms in which raw
  material was stored. In the said statement, he has further stated that the
  appellants were blending and mixing the additive mixture which was then
  transferred to their factories at UP and HP for manufacture of branded chewing
  tobacco. In the panchnama dated 20.10.1992, under which the premises of the
D appellants in Delhi were searched, the manufacturing process of additive
  mixture was specifically indicated. Even at that time, there was stock verification
  of the various raw materials used in the manufacture of chewing tobacco.
  Under item 59 of that panchnama, the stock of additive mixture has been
  specifically indicated. Further, on 30.4.1993, the Superintendent of Central
E Excise had also visited the factory of the appellants and had actually studied
  the process of manufacture in Delhi. On 3.5.1993, a letter was addressed to
  the appellants in which the appellants were called upon to supply all
  information regarding the process of obtaining additive mixture which was
  used in the manufacture of chewing tobacco. On receipt of the said letter, the
  appellants clearly indicated the ingredients used by them in the manufacture
F of additive mixture. On 20.9.1993, the officers of the department again visited
  the various premises of the appellants. They conducted physical stock
  checking, They saw registers maintained by the appellant in respect of different
  types of additive mixtures. All the registers were checked and verified on that
  day. There is no finding in the present case that the appellants did not answer
G the queries made by the department. Moreover, the tribunal in the connected
  appeal has recorded a finding that the appellants were maintaining transfer
  challans under which the said kimam was transferred to other units. The
  tribunal has further recorded a finding in the connected civil appeals no.1878-
   1880 of 2004 that the appellants were maintaining form-IV register as well
  stock register regarding receipt ofkimam in their factories in UP and HP from
H their factories in Delhi. That, after the change in the entries in 1994, no show-
         GOPALZARDAUDYOGr.COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE[KAPADIA,J.]          839

cause notice was ever issued. In the circumstances, although there was            A
contravention of the provisions of section 6 read with rule 174 and although
there was contravention in not obtaining registration of the units in Delhi, we
are of the view that there was no intent to evade payment of duty.

       For the aforestated reasons, we hold that "additive mixture" (kimam)
was excisable and classifiable under chapter sub-heading 2404.49/2404.40 of B
1985 Tariff Act, :.s held in the case of Dharampal Satyapal, (supra), however,
on the facts and circumstances of this case, the department was not entitled
to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section
11 A( I) of the said Act. Accordingly, these civil appeals are partly allowed,
with no order as to costs.
                                                                                  c
V.S.S.                                                 Appeal Partly allowed.