COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD., 1998 PTD-SUPREME-COURT-INDIA 1537 (1997)

1998 P T D 1537

[228 I T R 171]

[Supreme Court of India]

Present: Suhas C. Sen and Saghir Ahmad, JJ

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

versus

STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD. and others

Civil Appeals Nos.1275 of 1997 with Nos.3280 of 1995, 1465 and 1466 of 1981, 1624, 1625 of 1988, 2365, 9105 of 1994, 2324 to 2326, 3200, 3201, 3975, 4106, 6411, 6715, 6941, 8044, 8045, 8482, 8790 and 9835 of 1995 and 2293 of 1996, decided on 27/08/1997.

(Civil Appeal No. 1275 of 1997 was from the judgment and order dated November 29, 1991, of the Delhi High Court).

(Civil Appeals Nos. 1624 and 1625 of 1988 were by special leave from the judgment and order, dated March 21. 1987, of the Kerala High Court).

(Civil Appeal No.2365 of 1994 was by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 6, 1993, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court).

(a) Income-tax---

----Export markets development allowance---Weighted deduction---Burden of proof---Condition precedent---Expenditure must be spent wholly and exclusively on one of purposes mentioned in sub-clauses of S.35-B(1)(b)-- Onus is on assessee to prove it---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.35-B.

(b) Income-tax---

----Export markets development allowance---Weighted deduction---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Claim not made before I.T.O. or First Appellate Authority---Tribunal could not allow claim---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.35-B & 254.

(c) Income-tax---

----Export markets development allowance---Weighted deduction-- Commissioner paid to S.T.C. for sales made by it to parties outside India-- Commission paid to middleman for purchase of goods for and on behalf of foreign buyer---Customs duty paid for sending gods to foreign branches-- Not entitled to weighted deduction---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.35-B.

(d) Income-tax---

---Reference---Export markets development allowance---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Tribunal whether right in law in admitting claim for weighted deduction which was not made before I.T.O. or C.I.T. (Appeals) and whether Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction on whole of E.C.G.C. charges---Tribunal was in error in not referring case and High Court was in error in not. calling for reference---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. Ss.35-B & 256.

When a claim for weighted deduction is made, it is for the assessee to satisfy the Income Tax Officer that the expenditure falls under any of the sub-clauses of clause (b) of section 35-B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The onus is on the assessee to prove that he is entitled to weighted deduction allowed under section 35-B. In order to get this deduction, the assessee will have to prove that the expenditure was incurred during the previous year wholly and exclusively for the purposes set out in clause (b) of section 35-B(1). There cannot be any blanket allowance of the expenditure nor can there be any blanket disallowance. Every case has to be discussed specifically and the expenditure must be found to be of the nature.' Mentioned in any one of the sub-clauses. If the expenditure does not fall in any of these categories-, it cannot be allowed as a deduction. Some of the sub-clauses provide that if the expenditure is incurred in India, it cannot be allowed but in some of the sub-clauses this requirement is not there. In such cases, the expenditure may or may not be incurred in India. Every case will have to be examined in the light of the provisions of the sub-clauses and the facts proved by the assesses.

Held, (in C.A. No.3975 of 1995) that the Tribunal was wrong in allowing the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under section 35-B without going into the facts of the case. The claim was not made before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. No particulars of the expenditure were furnished to them. The particulars should have been placed before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for examination. The onus of proving the facts and getting the benefit of the deduction lay on the assessee. The assessee not having proved anything either before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not get this deduction. The Tribunal could not allow the claim on assumption of facts. The Tribunal was in error in not referring the question to the High Court. The High Court was also in error in not calling for a reference in this case.

CIT (Addl.) v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) rel.

Held, (i) (in C.A. 1275 of 1977) that the assessee's goods were sold by the State Trading Corporation of India Limited to various parties outside India. The assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35-B(1)(b)(i) and (iv). The claim of the assessee was not admissible on these facts.

(ii) (in C.As. Nos. l624-25 of 1988) that the expenditure which qualifies for deduction under section 35-B(1)(b)(iii) will have to be expenditure incurred outside India in connection with distribution, supply or provisions outside India of such goods, services or facilities. No deduction under section 35-B can be allowed to the assessee for expenditure incurred in India in connection with sale of goods. There was no dispute that the expenditure was wholly incurred in India. Sub-clause (ii) speaks of "obtaining information regarding markets outside India for such goods, services or facilities". The facts stated by the Tribunal showed that a middleman approached the assessee for purchase of its goods for and on behalf of the foreign buyer. The assessee agreed to sell his goods. The middleman obtained the commission. This did not amount to obtaining information regarding "market outside India of such goods, services or facilities". This was nothing payment of sales commission to a middleman for the purpose of effecting sales. The commission paid was not entitled to weighted deduction for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77.

(iii) (in C.As. Nos.8044-45 of 1995) that the finding of fact by the Tribunal was that most of the expenditure of customs duty paid for sending the goods by the Indian party to its `foreign branches. Whether the foreign branches paid the duty or the Indian branch paid the duty, was quite immaterial. The transaction was an internal transaction of sending goods .by the company to its own branches abroad. The assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B on the expenditure incurred by it under the heads "customs duty", "repairs and re-assembly", "clearing and storage" and certain expenditure incurred by foreign branches.

By the Court: If the State Trading Corporation incurs expenditure for advertisement or publicity outside India, the assessee will not be entitled to any deduction unless the assessee can establish that the advertisement or publicity was being done outside India for, and on behalf of the assessee and in respect of goods the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business. Likewise, if the State Trading Corporation maintains a branch office or agency for the promotion of sale outside India, the assessee cannot claim any deduction on account of maintenance of such branch office or agency but if such branch office or agency. is maintained by the assessee himself for the promotion of sale outside India of his goods, services or facilities, then the assessee will be entitled to a deduction under section 35B.

(The Court ordered a remand in the following cases:---Civil Appeals Nos.3280 of 1995, 2365, 9105 of 1994, 2324 to 2326, 3200, 3201, 6715, 8790 and 9835 of 1995).

T.L.V. Iyer and G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocates (Ms. Ranu George, B.K. Prasad, H.K. Purr, Rajesh Srivastva, Ujjwal Banerjee, Vineet Kumar, Ms. Janaki Ramachandran, S. Ganesh, K.J. John, Ms. Manju Mishra, B. Kanta Rao, K. Janjani and K.L. Janani, Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties.

JUDGMENT

The following question of law came up for consideration before the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of commission payment of Rs.1,46,678?"

The High Court declined to entertain this question. Hence, this appeal to this Court.

The assessee's goods were sold by the State Trading Corporation of India Limited to various parties outside India. The assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35-B(l)(b)(i) and (iv). The claim of the assessee is not admissible on these facts. The weighted deduction is allowed for activities carried out wholly and exclusively on the various purposes set out in sub-clauses (i), (ii), (v), (vii), (viii) and (ix) of section 35-B(1)(b). Section 35-B allowed at the material time deduction of a sum equal to one and one-third times of the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year. In order to get this kind of deduction, the onus lies heavily ion the assessee to prove that the expenditure falls within any of the purposes set out in the various sub-clauses of clause (b) of section 35:B(1). Merely because some activities took place outside India that will not qualify the expenditure for the deductions mentioned in section 35-B. If the State Trading Corporation incurs expenditure for an advertisement or publicity outside India, the assessee will not be entitled to any deduction unless the assessee can establish that the advertisement or publicity was being done outside India for and on behalf of the assessee and in respect of goods the assessee gals in or provides in the course of his business. Likewise, if the State Trading Corporation maintains a branch office or agency for the promotion of sale outside India, the assessee cannot claim any deduction on account of maintenance of such branch office or agency but if such branch office or agency is maintained by tire assessee himself for the promotion of sale outside India of his goods, services or facilities, then the assessee will be entitled to a deduction under section 35-B.

We are of the view that the High Court should have called for a reference of this question. However, at this stage, there is no point in sending the case back to the High Court. We treat the reference as having been made to this Court and answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. The appeal is allowed.

Civil Appeal No.3280 of 1995:

The following question of law was sought to be referred to the High Court:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs.3,10,750 paid as commission to Singh- & Co. and HREC is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B(1)(b) of, the Income Tax Act 1961 ? "

The question was not referred to the High Court because in the view of the Tribunal the case was concluded by the decision of the Tribunal in J. Hemchand & Co. It is difficult to follow the logic of this decision of the Tribunal. When a claim for weighted deduction is made, it is for the assessee to satisfy the Income-tax Officer that the expenditure falls in any of the sub- clause of clause (b) of section 35-B(1). The onus is on the assessee to prove that he is entitled to the weighted deduction allowed under section 35-B.

In order to get this deduction the assessee will have to prove that the expenditure was incurred during the previous year wholly and exclusively for the purposes set out in clause (b) of section 35-B(I)(b). There cannot be any blanket allowance of the expenditure nor can there be any blanket disallowance. Every case has to be discussed specifically and the expenditure must be found to be of the nature mentioned m any one of the sub-clauses. If the expenditure does not fall in any of these categories, it cannot be allowed as a deduction. Some of the sub-clauses provided that if the expenditure is incurred in India, it cannot be allowed but in some of the sub-clauses this requirement is not there. In such cases, the expenditure may or may not be incurred in India. Every case will have to be examined in the light of the provisions of the sub-clauses and the facts proved by the assessee.

We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as also the appellate order of the Tribunal. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal. The assessee will have an opportunity to establish his case before the Tribunal to claim deduction. The appeal is disposed of.

Civil Appeals Nos. 1465 of 1981 and 1466 of 1981:

The Appeals are dismissed.

Civil Appeals Nos. 1624-25 of 1988:

The following question of law was referred to the High Court by the Tribunal:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77?"

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and

(i)since the foreign buyer had through the Indian agent located the assessee, '

(ii)the commission had been paid in India the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) or both?"

The expenditure which qualifies for deduction under section 35-B(1) (b)(iii) will have to be expenditure incurred outside India in connection with distribution, supply or provision outside India of such goods, services or facilities. No deduction under section 35-B can be allowed to the assessee for expenditure incurred in India in connection with sale of goods. There is no dispute that the expenditure was wholly incurred in India.

The next question is whether the assessee is entitled to relief under sub-clause (ii) of section 35-B(1)(b). Sub-clause (ii) speaks of "obtaining information regarding markets outside India for such goods, services or facilities". From the facts stated by the Tribunal, it appears that a middleman approached the assessee for purchase of its goods for and on behalf of the foreign buyer. The assessee agreed to sell his goods. The middleman obtained the commission. This does not amount to obtaining information regarding "markets outside India of such goods, services or facilities". This is nothing but payment of sales commission to a middleman for the purpose of the effecting sales. The foreign buyer located the assessee through the middleman. We are of the view that these appeals have no merit and have to be dismissed. The appeals are dismissed, There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeals No.2365 of 1994:

The following question of law was sought to be referred:

"(1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of section 35-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing full deduction in respect of the following items:

(a) Commission paid to E.C.G.C./H.H.E.C.

(b) Advertisement expenses,

(c) Registration charges for Olympaid-80 and

(d) Part of expenses under the head "Director's salary, postage, and telegrams" not incidental to exports? '

(2)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35-B in respect of packing credit interest?"

The Tribunal declined to refer this question. The High Court rejected the application under section 256(2). It appears that the Tribunal did not examine the claim of the assessee by reference to any of the sub-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b). No expenditure can be allowed under section 35-B generally. The assessee must be able to establish the facts to prove that the expenditure falls within the ambit of sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of clause (b) 'of section 35-B(1). This has not been done. We are of the view that the appellate order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We set aside the order of the High Court as also the appellate order of the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Tribunal. The assessee will have an opportunity of proving the nature of the expenditure and establishing that the expenditure falls within any one of the sub-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b). It has to be remembered that the onus is on the assessee to establish the facts to obtain the deduction claimed. The appeal is allowed with the above observations. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.9105 of 1.994:

It appears that the Tribunal did not examine the claim of the assessee by' reference to any of the stab-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b). No expenditure can be allowed under section 35-B generally. The assessee must be able to g establish the facts to prove that the expenditure falls within the ambit of sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of clause (b) of section 35-B(1). This has not been done. We are of the view that the appellate order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We set aside the order of the High Court as also the appellate order of the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Tribunal. The assessee will have 'an opportunity of proving the nature of the expenditure and establishing that the expenditure falls within any one of the sub-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b). It has to be remembered that the onus is on the assessee to establish the facts to obtain the deduction claimed. The appeal is allowed with the above observations. There will be no order as costs.

Civil Appeals Nos. 2324 to 26 of 1995:

Two questions of law arose for consideration in this case before the High Court:

"R. A. No. 17:

(1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on a proper interpretation of section 35-B, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing weighted deduction on total service charges paid to the S.T.C. of India amounting to Rs.7,35,721 and whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction on entire service charges paid to S.T.C. when the assessee had claimed weighted deduction only on 2/3rds of service charges paid to S.T.C.?

(2)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction to the assessee in respect of expenses such as:

(i) Establishment expenses,

(ii) Rent paid for Karnal Office,

(iii) Rent paid for Delhi Office,

(iv) Car expenses.

(v) Telephone charges,

(vi) Stationery expenses,

which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer in toto and the disallowance was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but allowed by the Tribunal in the proportion worked out by the Tribunal?

(3)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on a proper interpretation of section 40-A(3), the Appellate tribunal was right in law in vacating the addition of Rs.3,500 made the Income-tax Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40-A(3) of the Act in respect of payment of Rs.2,000 and Rs.1,500 made on February 25, 1978, to Leather Products, Jagdishpura?

R. A. No. 18:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances .of the case, on a proper interpretation of section 35-B, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) allowing weighted deduction on 50 per cent. of service charges paid to the S.T.C. of India amounting to Rs.7,35,721?"

The High Court declined to call for a reference of these questions. We are of the view that the High Court was clearly in error. Questions of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in allowing weighted Education without investigating the facts and examining the law applicable. There is no point in calling for a reference of this case at this stage. The Tribunal must examine the case afresh in the light of the observations made in C.A. No.2365 of 1'994. The onus is on the assessee to prove that he was entitled to the expenditure by reference to the various sub-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b). The expenditures cannot generally be allowed as claimed. We set aside the order of the High Court as also the appellate order of the Tribunal. The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.3200 of 1995:

It appears at the Tribunal did not examine the claim of the assessee by reference to any of the sub-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b). No expenditure can be allowed under section 35-B generally. The assessee must be able to establish the facts to prove that the expenditure falls within the ambit of sub -clauses (i) to (ix) of clause (b) of section 35-B(1). This has not been done. We are of the view that the appellate order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We set aside the order of the High Court as also the appellate order of the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Tribunal. The assessee will have an opportunity of proving the nature of the expenditure and establishing that the expenditure falls within any one of the sub-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b). It has to be remembered that the onus is on the assessee to establish the facts to obtain the deduction claimed. The appeal is allowed with the above observations. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Anneal No.3201 of 1995:

In this case, the Tribunal was wrong in allowing the deduction claimed without examining the facts. The High Court was also wrong in not calling for a reference the order of the High Court is set aside. The appellate order of the Tribunal is also set aside. The appeal is allowed. The assessee can satisfy the Tribunal by giving particulars that the expenditure was of such a nature as falls in any of the sub-clauses of section 35-B(1)(b).

Civil Anneal No.3975 of 1995:

The Tribunal was wrong in allowing the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under section 35-B without going into the facts of the case. The claim was not made before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. No particulars of the expenditures were furnished to them. The particulars should have been placed before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for examination. The onus of proving the facts and getting the benefit of the deduction lies on the assessee. The assessee-not having proved anything either before the Income -tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot get this deduction. The Tribunal cannot allow the claim on assumption of facts. The Tribunal was also in error in not referring the following question of law sought to be raised to the High Court:

"(i)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in admitting the assessee's additional grounds claiming weighted deduction under section 35-B on items of which no claim has been made before the Income-tax Officer or before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)?

(ii)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35-B in respect of packing credit interest for which there has been no claim before the lower authorities?

(iii)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case on a proper interpretation of section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the -Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction on the whole of the E.C.G.G. charges?"

The High Court was also in error in not calling for a reference in this case.

In the case of Additional CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd (1978) 111 1TR 1, this Court held that when a claim under section 84 was neither made before the Income-tax Officer nor before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal was not right in entertaining that claim and allowing it in favour of the assessee.

In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal was erroneous and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed, there will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.4106 of 1995:

The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.6411 of 1995:

The Tribunal overlooked that in order to qualify for deduction the expenditures must have been wholly or exclusively incurred for the purpose mentioned in clause (b) of section 35-B(1). The order of the High Court under appeal is set aside. The appellate order of the Tribunal is also set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Civil Anneal No.6715 of 1995:

The following question of law was sought to be retired to the High Court

"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35-B in respect of Rs.29,746 paid as export agency commission to E.C.G.C.?"

The Tribunal declined to refer the question. The High Court rejected the application. Our attention was drawn that the question sought to be raised before the High Court under section 256(2) was differently worded. But the High Court could have referred the question. The Tribunal should not have declined to refer the question to the High Court under section 256(1).

In view of our earlier decisions, this case is remanded back to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with the directions given earlier. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appellate order of the Tribunal is also set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

C.A. No.6941 of 1995:

In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, the order under appeal passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellate order of the Tribunal is also set aside.

The appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeals Nos.8044 and 8045 of 1995:

The following questions of law arise in this case:

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee teas entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B on the expenditure incurred by it under the heads 'customs duty' 'repairs and reassembly', clearing and storage' and certain expenditure incurred by foreign branches?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B on the expenses which were general in nature and thus not covered under any of the clauses of section 35-B?"

The finding of fact by the Tribunal is that most of the expenditure was of customs duty paid for sending the goods by the Indian party to its foreign branches. Whether the foreign branches paid the duty or the Indian branch paid the duty, is quite immaterial. The transaction was an internal transaction of sending goods by the company to its own branches abroad. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order of the High Court as well as the appellate order of the Tribunal

The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.8482 of 1995:

The Revenue has not advanced any argument except on question No. l which is as under:

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a the proper interpretation of section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing further weighted deduction in respect of expenses under various heads including travelling', 'service charges/commission to various agencies', expenses of foreign delegation in India', 'bank interest on packing credit', 'subscriptions' 'commission and brokerage' and on proportionate expenses under other heads like salary' , talex, telephone and telegram', ' postage' , ' printing and stationery' , electricity', ' Jamnagar office expenses', 'bank charges', etc.?"

The Tribunal was clearly in error in allowing, this claim for r weighted deduction without examining the claim. The assessee has also failed to adduce any proper findings and make out a proper case under clause(b) of section 35-B(I). In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in not referring the question of law to the High Court. The High Court was in error in not calling for a reference. There is no point in directing a reference at this stage. We hold that the Appellate Tribunal's decision in regard to section 35-B was erroneous. We set aside the order of the High Court. We also set aside the appellate order of the Tribunal.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs.

C.A. No.8790 of 1995:

This case relates to payments of commission to S.T.C. and H.H.E.C. by the assessee-company. The admissibility of this expenditure under section 35-B will depend upon the facts of the case. The assessee will have to prove the facts to bring it within the compass of various sub-clauses of clause (b) of section 35-B(1). The Tribunal has not examined this case properly at all. The assessee has also not proved his case in any way. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and send the case back to the Tribunal to decide it in accordance with law. The order of the High Court under appeal is set aside. The appellate order of the Tribunal is also set aside. The appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

C.A. No.9835 of 1995:

This case relates to weighted deductions. No question of law was referred to the High Court. The High Court also did not call for a reference. The order of the High Court is clearly erroneous and is set aside. The appellate order is also set aside. The Tribunal will examine the case afresh. There will be an opportunity given to the assessee to prove that the claim for weighted deduction was for activities falling within the sub-clauses of clause (b) of section 35-B(1).

The appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.2293 of 1996:

The appeal is dismissed.

M.B.A./1681/FCOrder accordingly.