{"id":185181,"date":"1990-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990"},"modified":"2019-02-10T06:53:03","modified_gmt":"2019-02-10T01:23:03","slug":"union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2049, \t\t 1990 SCR (2) 659<\/div>\n
Author: R Sahai<\/div>\n
Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. WOOD PAPERS LTD. AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/04\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 2049\t\t  1990 SCR  (2) 659\n 1990 SCC  (4) 256\t  JT 1991 (1)\t151\n 1990 SCALE  (1)61\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1992 SC 152\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\n    Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944\/Central Excise  Rules:\nSection\t 4, Schedule I item 17\/Rule 8 and  Notification\t No.\n163 of 1965--Exemption to all sorts of paper by 'any factory\ncommencing production'---Claim for exemption on capacity  as\nit existed in 1967--Whether permissible?\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t Respondent  Company which was established  in\t1942\nwent into production in 1944 manufacturing Straw Boards\t and\nMill  boards only uptil the year 1964. In 1965\tit  expanded\nits activities by manufacturing duplex board. In the follow-\ning year it started manufacturing packing and wrapping paper\non  experimental basis and on commercial basis\tafter  1967.\nSometime in 1971 the Company wrote to the Assistant  Collec-\ntor  of Central Excise enquiring as to whether it  would  be\nentitled  to  exemption\t from duty  under  Notification\t No.\n163\/1965  both in respect of production attributable to\t its\ninstalled  capacity  as\t in 1967 as well as  in\t respect  of\nproduction  attributable to its expanded capacity.  The\t As-\nsistant\t Collector passed an Order holding the\tcompany\t was\nentitled  to concession under column 5 of the Table  of\t the\nNotification  No. 163 of 1965 in respect of  production\t at-\ntributable  to its enlarged capacity namely, the  third\t ma-\nchine  and  rejected its claim for exemption  on  production\nattributable to its capacity as it existed in 1967.  Dissat-\nisfied the company preferred appeal to the Appellate Collec-\ntor who maintained the order of the Assistant Collector.\n    The Respondent-Company thereupon moved the High Court by\na  writ\t petition under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia.\tIn  allowing the writ Petition the High\t Court\theld\nthat on a plain literal construction it is obvious that\t the\ncommencement of production must refer not to the  production\nof excisable goods--paper in general failing under item\t 17.\nbut to production of those specified exempted categories  of\npaper in column 2 of the aforesaid notification. Hence\tthis\nappeal by the Union of India.\n    Allowing the appeal and dismissing the Writ Petition  of\nthe Company. this Court.\n    HELD:  When the question is whether a subject  falls  in\nthe Notification or in the exemption clause then it being in\nnature of exception is to be construed strictly and  against\nthe subject but once ambiguity or doubt about  applicability\nis  removed and the subject falls in the  notification\tthen\nfull play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and\nliberal construction. [663D-E]\nA  close reading of both parts of the Notification  together\nleaves no\n660\nroom for doubt that it was intended to be exhaustive  grant-\ning  exemption to all factories producing packing and  wrap-\nping  paper whether existing or commencing  production\tfrom\n1st  March.  1964 to the former to the\textent\tof  enlarged\ncapacity and to latter to the full extent. [663G-H]\n    As\tthe  Respondent Company did not fall  in  the  first\nclause\tof the notification there was no question of  giving\nthe  clause a liberal construction and hold that  production\nof  goods  by the Respondent mentioned in  the\tNotification\nwere entitled to the benefit.\n    Production\tof packing and wrapping paper by  Respondent\nwas  entitled  to exemption only to the extent\tit  was\t at-\ntributable  to\tenlarged capacity and not  to  the  existing\ncapacity. [665F; 664F]\n    Hansraj  Goverdhan v. H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector,\tCen-<\/a>\ntral  Excise & Customs, Surat and Others,  [1969]  2  S.C.R.\n2.52;  Commissioner of Inome-tax v. Madho Prasad,  [1989]  4\nS.C.C. 541; Tara Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of  Central\nExcise, A.I.R.<\/a> 1989 SC 644 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  539  of
\n1976.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  26.8.1975  of\t the
\nGujarat\t High  Court in Spl. Civil Application No.  1627  of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
    Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, A. Subba Rao, C.V.S.
\nRao, P. Parmeswaran and Ms. Nisha Bache for the Appellants.
\nS.K. Dhingra for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    R.M.  SAHAI,  J.  By this appeal  Union  Government\t has
\nchallenged  correctness\t of construction by  High  Court  of
\nGujarat of notification No. 163 of 1965 issued under Rule  8
\nframed under Central Excise and Salt Act allowing  exemption
\nto  all sorts of papers by “any factory\t commencing  produc-
\ntion”\tto  refer  “not\t to  the  production  of   excisable
\ngoods–paper  in general failing under Item 17, but to\tpro-
\nduction\t of these specified exempted categories of paper  in
\nColumn 2 of this notification” and canvasses for  acceptance
\nof  the\t construction put on it by  the\t Collector,  Central
\nExcise\t“that the factory must have commenced production  on
\nor  after  that date and not that the  production  of  these
\nitems must have been commenced after the date”.
\n    M\/s.  Arvind Boards & Paper Products  Limited,  Antalia,
\nBilimora, Gujarat State, was established in 1942. From\t1944
\nwhen it went into production till 1964 it manufactured\tonly
\nstraw boards and mill boards. It expanded its activities  in
\n1965 and commenced manufacture of duplex board. The  packing
\nand wrapping paper was manufactured
\n661<\/span>
\non experimental basis in 1966 and on commercial basis  after
\n1967.  In December, 1971 the company wrote a letter  to\t the
\nAssistant Collector of Central Excise inquiring as to wheth-
\ner the company would be entitled to exemption under  notifi-
\ncation\tNo.  163\/65 both in respect of\tthe  production\t at-
\ntributable  to its installed capacity as in 1967 as well  as
\nin  respect of the production attributable to  its  expanded
\ncapacity. In 1972 it was informed that it would be  entitled
\nto  concession under Column 5 of the Table of the  notifica-
\ntion  in respect of the production attributable to  the\t en-
\nlarged capacity, namely, the third machine only. Consequent-
\nly the claim of the petitioners for exemption on capacity as
\nit  existed  in 1967 was not accepted. The order  was  main-
\ntained in appeal as well. The Appellate Collector held:
\n“I  do\tnot agree with the appellant’s contention  that\t the
\nAssistant Collector erred in holding that “any factory which
\ncommenced  production” related to any factory  manufacturing
\npaper  falling under Item 17 of the said schedule  irrespec-
\ntive  of the varieties manufactured thereof.  The  exemption
\ncontained in the aforesaid Notification No. 163\/65 as amend-
\ned is in respect of the goods. Said exemption is conditional
\ni.e.  it is applicable to paper produced in a factory  which
\ncommenced production on or after a specific date. Therefore,
\nthe  condition is that the factory must have commenced\tpro-
\nduction on or after that date and not that the production of
\nthese items must have been commenced after that date.”
\nThe  High Court did not agree with the construction  of\t the
\nNotification made by the Collector (Appeal) and held:
\n“That  is  why the whole controversy has arisen\t as  regards
\nthese  key  words “commencement of production”. On  a  plain
\nliteral\t construction,\tbearing in mind the context  of\t the
\nexemption, where only certain specified categories of  paper
\nwhich  is excisable item as specified in Column 2  had\tbeen
\nexempted, it is obvious that the commencement of  production
\nmust  refer not to the production of excisable\tgoods–paper
\nin general falling under item 17, but to production of these
\nspecified  exempted  categories of paper in Col. 2  of\tthis
\nnotification. Any other interpretation would make the speci-
\nfication  of various kinds of paper in Column 2 which  alone
\nattracted  exemption  redundant\t and would  make  even\tthis
\ncondition in Cols. 3, 4 and 5 unworkable.”\n<\/p>\n
    Excise  duty was leviable under the Act  on\t manufacture
\nand  clearance of paper under Item 17 of Schedule 1  to\t the
\nAct. It reads as
\n662<\/span>
\n“MANUFACTURED GOODS CLASSIFIED CHIEFLY BY MATERIAL\n<\/p>\n
17.  PAPER,  all  sorts\t (including  pasteboard,  millboard.
\nstraw-board  and cardboard), in or in relation to the  manu-
\nfacture\t of which any process is ordinarily carried on\twith
\nthe aid of power’.\n<\/p>\n
XXX\t\t      XXX\t\t    XXX
\n(3) Printing and writing paper, packing and wrapping  paper,
\nstraw board and pulp board, including grey board, corrugated
\nboard,\tduplex\tand triplex boards, other  sorts  …..\t  35
\npaise per kg.”\n<\/p>\n
In 1965 the Central Government issued notification exempting
\npapers\tof all sorts, from so much of the excise duty  levi-
\nable  thereon under the said item read\twithin\tnotification
\nfor the time being in force issued by the Central Government
\nin relation to the duty so leviable, as is specified in\t the
\ncorresponding  entry in Columns 3, 4, 5(a), 5(b) &  5(c)  of
\nthe Table as the case may be:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   TABLE
\nS. Des-\t    Any factory\t   Any factory\tAny factory commen-<\/p>\n
\ncription    which comm-\t   which comm-\tproduction for the\n\t    enced pro-\t   enced pro-\ttime on or after the\n\t    duction\t   duction on\t1st March, 1964, or\n\t    before the\t   or after the any factory existing\n\t    1st April,\t   1st April,\timmediately, before\n\t    1961.\t   1961 but\tthe 1st March 1964\n\t\t\t   before the\twhose production\n\t\t\t   1st March\tcapacity has been\n\t\t\t   1964.\tenlarged and brought\n\t\t\t\t\tinto operation on or\n\t\t\t\t\tafter the extent\n\t\t\t\t\tsuch production is\n\t\t\t\t\tattributable to the\n\t\t\t\t\tenlarge capacity.\n\t\t\t\t\t-------------------\n\t\t\t   During the\tDuring\tDuring the\n\t\t\t   first 12\tthe\tperiod\n\t\t\t   months of\tsecond\tsubsequent\n\t\t\t   the com-\t12 mon- to the first\n\t\t\t   mencement\tmence-\t24 months\n\t\t\t   of produc-\tment of of the com-\n\t\t\t   duction.\tproduc- mencement\n\t\t\t\t\t\tof produc-\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttion.\n663<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
———————————————————\n<\/p>\n
1    2\t      3\t      4\t      5(a)\t 5(b)\t     5(c)\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————\n<\/p>\n
    Entitlement of exemption depends on construction of\t the
\nexpression  “any factory commencing production” used in\t the
\nTable  extracted above. Literally exemption is freedom\tfrom
\nliability,  tax\t or  duty. Fiscally it\tmay  assume  varying
\nshapes,\t specially  in a growing economy. For  instance\t tax
\nholiday\t to new units, concessional rate of tax to goods  or
\npersons\t for limited period or with the\t specific  objective
\netc.  That is why its construction, unlike  charging  provi-
\nsion,  has to be tested on different touchstone.  Infact  an
\nexemption  provision  is  like an exception  and  on  normal
\nprinciple  of construction or interpretation of statutes  it
\nis  construed strictly either because of legislative  inten-
\ntion  or on economic justification of inequitable burden  or
\nprogressive  approach of fiscal provisions intended to\taug-
\nment state revenue. But once exception or exemption  becomes
\napplicable no rule or principle requires it to be  construed
\nstrictly. Truly, speaking liberal and strict construction of
\nan exemption provision are to be invoked at different stages
\nof  interpreting it. When the question is whether a  subject
\nfalls in the notification or in the exemption clause then it
\nbeing in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and
\nagainst\t the subject but once ambiguity or doubt  about\t ap-
\nplicability is lifted and the subject fails in the notifica-
\ntion then full play should be given to it and it calls for a
\nwider  and liberal construction. Therefore, the first  exer-
\ncise  that  has\t to be undertaken is if\t the  production  of
\npacking\t and wrapping material in the factory as it  existed
\nprior to 1964 is covered in the notification.
\n    From the table extracted above it is clear that it is in
\ntwo  parts and exemption is allowable in the first  part  to
\nthe  factory commencing production on or after\t31st  March,
\n1964,  and  in the second part to the  existing\t factory  to
\nextent\tof enlarged capacity. If the first part is  read  in
\nisolation  it is susceptible of construction as was  adopted
\nby  the High Court. But the notification has to be  read  in
\nits  entirety  and constured as a whole. Once that  is\tdone
\ncloud of uncertainty disappears. A close reading of both the
\nparts together leaves no room for doubt that it was intended
\nto be exhaustive granting exemption to all factories produc-
\ning packing and wrapping paper whether existing or  commenc-
\ning  production from 1st March, 1964. To the former  to\t the
\nextent\tof enlarged capacity and to latter to  full  extent.
\nThe  ambiguity arose because of absence of words new  before
\n‘factory’ or goods after the word ‘production’ in the  first
\nclause.\t To  harmonise\tit the High Court  added  the  words
\n‘goods’. But what was lost sight of that the words ‘commenc-
\ning’ in the first part and ‘existing’ in the second part had
\nto  be\tread in juxtaposition. That is all  those  factories
\nwhich were existing from before
\n664<\/span>
\nwere  entitled\tto exemption on production of goods  to\t the
\nextent of enlarged capacity. This enlargement could be as  a
\nresult\tof  installation of additional machinery.  The\tword
\n‘capacity must necessarily relate to capacity of factory and
\nnot to goods. For instance a factory with capacity of say  1
\nlakh kg. of paper but producing only 75 thousand kg. achiev-
\ning maximum after 1964 could not be covered in the clause as
\nthe production cannot be held to be due to enlarged  capaci-
\nty.  That  could be only if the capacity  to  produce  goods
\nincreased  due to installation of additional  machinery.  If
\nthis  be  true and correct, as it appears to  be,  then\t the
\nfirst part presents no difficulty. The expression  ‘commenc-
\ning  production’ has to be read as commencing production  of
\ngoods  by a factory which was not existing and\thas  started
\nproduction on or after 1st March, 1864. Any other  construc-
\ntion shall result in discrimination. A factory like respond-
\nent existing from 1942 producing straw board and mill  board
\nshall be entitled to exemption on production of wrapping and
\npacking paper on construction of the expression\t ‘commencing
\nproduction’  by the High Court even though it switched\tover
\nfrom  straw  board and mill board to  packing  and  wrapping
\npaper after the relevant date whereas another unit  existing
\nand producing wrapping and packing paper itself from  before
\n1st March, 1964 could not be entitled to exemption except to
\nthe extent of enlarged capacity. That is if an existing unit
\nwould  have  installed a new machinery it  would  have\tbeen
\nentitled  to  exemption of production only  to\tthat  extent
\nwhereas\t any  unit producing goods other than  the  exempted
\ngoods  would  become  entitled to exemption  in\t respect  of
\nentire production. That could not have been the intention. A
\nconstruction  which  results in inequitable results  and  is
\nincongruous,  has  to be avoided. Therefore,  production  of
\npacking\t and  wrapping paper by respondent was\tentitled  to
\nexemption only to the extent it was attributable to enlarged
\ncapacity and not to the existing capacity.\n<\/p>\n
    Hansraj Goverdhan v.H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector, Central
\nExcise & Customs, Surat and Others, [1969] 2 SCR 252  relied
\non  behalf of respondent demonstrates  mis-conception  about
\ninterpreting  an  exemption provision. It was a\t case  where
\ngoods  of  third persons were  manufactured  by\t cooperative
\nsociety. But once initial hurdle was crossed and it was held
\nthat  goods had been produced by cooperative society it\t was
\nfound  squarely\t covered in the notification and  the  Court
\nextended  it  to  goods manufactured by\t third\tpersons\t and
\nrepelled  the submission that object of\t granting  exemption
\nwas  to encourage formation of cooperative societies and  it
\nshould be confined to goods manufactured by its members\t and
\nnot others. Similarly in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madho
\nPrasad, [1989] 4 SCC 541 the provision
\n665<\/span>
\nallowing exemption to ‘such part of the income in respect of
\nwhich the said tax is payable. under the head ‘property’  as
\nis  equal  to the amount of rent payable for  a\t year’,\t was
\nconstrued  liberally  and it was held  that  the  expression
\n‘equal\tto  the amount of rent payable for a year’  did\t not
\n‘warrant the inference that the benefit of exemption’  could
\n‘be claimed only once’ because the amount of rent which\t was
\nsought\tto  be\tdeducted in more than one  years  was  found
\nsquarely to fall in Item 36 of notification. It was again  a
\ncase  of  interpreting an exemption  notification  at  later
\nstage.\tRecently in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector  of
\nCentral Excise,<\/a> [1989] 4 SCC 541, exemption was to soap made
\nfrom  indigenous  rice bran oil as against edible  oil.\t The
\nassessee  was engaged in manufacture of soap from rice\tbran
\nfatty  acid  which  was extracted from\trice  bran  oil,  in
\nassesses  factory. It was found rice bran oil as such  could
\nnot  be\t used  unless  it was  converted  into\tfatty  acid.
\nTherefore the assessee was covered in the notification. Once
\nthe  ambiguity or about manufacture of soap from  rice\tbran
\nfatty  acid was removed the Bench proceeded to construe\t the
\nword   “indigenous”  in\t the  notification   liberally.\t  In
\nCollector  of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd.,\t AIR<\/a>
\n1989  644 this Court while accepting that  exemption  clause
\nshould\tbe  construed liberally applied\t rigorous  test\t for
\ndetermining if expensive items like Gold Spot base or  Limca
\nbase  or Thums Up base were covered in the  expression\tfood
\nproducts and food preparations used in item No. 68 of  First
\nSchedule  of Central Excise and Salt Act and held  ‘that  it
\nshould\tnot be in consonance with spirit and the  reason  of
\nlaw  to\t give exemption for  non-alchoholic  beverage  basis
\nunder  the notification in question.’ Rationale or Ratio  is
\nsame.  Do  not\textend\tor  widen  the\tambit  at  stage  of
\napplicability.\tBut once that hurdle is crossed construe  it
\nliberally.  Since the respondent did not fall in  the  first
\nclause\tof the notification there was no question of  giving
\nthe  clause a liberal construction and hold that  production
\nof  goods by respondent mentioned in the  notification\twere
\nentitled to benefit.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result this appeal succeeds and is allowed.\t The
\norder  of the High Court is set aside and the Writ  Petition
\nis dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.N.J.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n666<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2049, 1990 SCR (2) 659 Author: R Sahai Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. WOOD PAPERS LTD. AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/04\/1990 BENCH: SAHAI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-10T01:23:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs M\\\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T01:23:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990\"},\"wordCount\":2144,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs M\\\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T01:23:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs M\\\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-10T01:23:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990","datePublished":"1990-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T01:23:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990"},"wordCount":2144,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990","name":"Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T01:23:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-ms-wood-papers-ltd-and-anr-on-24-april-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Ors vs M\/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185181\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}