DCIT Vs SRF Ltd

Whether fault can be found in orders directing AO to verify whether the assessee satisfied the mandate of Section 32A(6) before allowing claim for unabsorbed investment allowance - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

DCIT Vs S R Credits Pvt Ltd

Whether the invocation of section 153A to re-open concluded assessments of AY's earlier to year of search is not justified in absence of incriminating material found during search qua each such earlier AY – YES : ITAT

Whether assessment framed by the AO in violation of the procedure provided in the Act was bad in law and void ab initio and cannot be sustained – YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

ACIT Vs Vodafone South Ltd

Whether the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to distributors is not commission and therefore not liable for TDS deduction u/s 194H – YES: ITAT

Whether if more than one interpretations can be derived from a statutory provision, then that view which favours the tax payer should be preferred – YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: CHENNAI ITAT

Vithal Baban Bangar Vs ITO

Whether assessee can be assessed to tax only on real income and not on basis of any estimation or surmises – YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

DCIT Vs Vishram Developers

Whether findings of CIT(A) in accepting the assessee's statment & granting relief without assigning reasons, by accepting patent discrepancies in P&L a/c & statement of accounts, are sustainable – NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal allowed: PUNE ITAT

Premier Shield Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of State Goods And Services Tax

GST - Petition filed challenging the order dated 27th February, 2020 passed by respondents cancelling the petitioner's registration under the CGST Act, 2017 and for restoration of the same - Petitioner now states that in view of the subsequent events, petitioner would like to withdraw the present writ petition and file an appropriate application before the proper officer.

Held: In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same be entertained/decided by respondents in accordance with law within four weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court

-Petition disposed of : DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1067-HC-DEL-GST

Scandia Motorcars Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to open the portal to enable the petitioner to seek transitional CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,79,85,755/- lying as credit balance in its account instead of Rs.1,62,74,543/- inadvertently claimed by it due to human error; that the work of filing TRAN-1 was outsourced to an accountant and on account of multiple columns and lack of knowledge, mistakes occurred which were unintentional; that the errors were detected by the Chartered Accountant while auditing the petitioner company.

Held: Counter-affidavits be filed within four weeks by respondents and rejoinder-affidavits be filed within four weeks thereafter - To await the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Brand Equity Treaties Limited & Ors., SLP (C) 7425-7428/2020 - 2020-TIOL-115-SC-GST-LB , list on 16th September, 2020: High Court

-Matter listed : DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1065-HC-MAD-GST

Indira Projects And Development Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer

GST - The present petitions were filed in contest demand notices issued to the petitioner pursuant to passing of assessment orders for the relevant AYs - The petitioner also claimed to have already filed writ petitions and that the Court Registry was yet to number the petitions and post them for admission - Such delay had been caused due to the on-going lockdown situation - Hence the petitioner claimed to have been constrained to file the present petition challenging the demand raised while the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders were yet to be heard by this court. Held - Considering that the present petitions were filed only against the consequential demand notices and also considering the petitioner's apprehension of the Revenue recovering dues as per the notices immediately, it is seen that the petitioner's apprehension is not well founded - This is in light of the CBIC Notfn No 35/2020 dated 03.04.2020 wherein general directions were issued not to make any recovery proceedings till 29.06.2020 - Hence the petitions are disposed off without expressing any views on merits: HC

-Writ petitions dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-145-AAR-GST

Shree Hari Engineers And Contractors

GST - Applicant has been awarded a Tender by M/s. Railtel Corporation of India limited (A Government of India Undertaking, Ministry of Railways) and the work to be performed is that of Excavation of trenches and laying of OFC(Optical Fiber Cable) through ducts, testing, commissioning of OFC - applicant submitted that the said work is an Original work; that the end use of the Optical Fibre Cable is for the purpose of connecting with the Gram Panchayat for socio-economic development hence it is not for the purpose of Commerce, Industry or any other business or profession; that, therefore, they are entitled to claim GST @12% in terms of Sl. No. 3(vi)(a) of 11/2017-CTR.

Held: Work carried out by the applicant i.e. "Excavation of Trenches and laying of OFC through ducts, testing, commissioning of OFC and maintenances etc. is not a function covered under the list of functions entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243 W of the Constitution of India or the list of functions entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243 G of the Constitution of India - In view of the above, M/s. Railtel Corporation of India ltd. does not fall under the category of 'Government Authority' - Further, the work done by the applicant for M/s. Railtel Corporation of India ltd. involves digging of trenches and laying of optical fiber cables for the purpose of supply of internet connection to the Gram Panchayat, however, it cannot be construed that the optical fiber cables laid underground are meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession - Therefore, Contract of the applicant M/s. Shree Hari Engineers and Contractors with M/s. Railtel Corporation of India ltd. does not fall under the Notification 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) [(which amends original Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017)] Sr.No.3 (vi)-Construction Service or Original Work to Government Authority so as to attract GST @12%: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-144-AAR-GST

Amba Township Pvt Ltd

GST - Part-B of Sector-4 of township cannot be considered as a standalone housing project since it shares common land, common facilities and common entrance with Part-A of Sector-4 of the township and since 50% of FAR/FSI of the entire housing project of Sector-4 (of Amba Township Pvt. Ltd.) comprising of Part-A and Part-B has not been used for construction of dwelling units with carpet area of not more than 60 sq.meters (as per the requirement in Notification F. No.13/06/2009 - INF dated 30.03.2017 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs), the said housing project cannot be considered as an 'affordable housing project' - Applicant is not eligible for the benefit of reduced rate as provided under Entry Number 3(v)(da) of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended by Notification No. 01/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018, available for houses constructed with a carpet area of 60 square metres per house: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-143-AAR-GST

A B Enterprise

GST - Applicant is eligible to claim exemption benefit under Sr.No.3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for pure services (supply of manpower, security service) provided to Central Government, State Government, Local Authorities, Governmental Authorities, Government Entities subject to the condition that the services provided to these entities mentioned above are services provided by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution of India or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution of India: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-142-AAR-GST

GST - Service of transportation of goods in barrages from mother vessel to daughter vessel from Magdalla Port, Surat to its General Lighterage Area of Magdalla Port is neither covered in the definition of ‘national waterways', as defined in Clause (h) of section 2 of the Inland Water Ways Authority of India Act, 1985 nor covered in the definition of ‘other waterway on any inland water', as defined under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Inland Vessel Act, 1917 - Consequently, the same does not qualify for exemption contained at Sr. No. 18 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) , dated 28.06.2017 - The length of the waterway between which the service of transport is performed by the applicant, is the part of the "Arabian Sea" and not a part of any canal, river, lake or other navigable water within a State - Thus, contention of applicant that the transportation is being done on the River Tapi, appears to be incorrect - As regard the contention that the entire activity is being done by them under territorial water only, it is worthwhile to mention that the Arabian Sea is not a part of the State of Gujarat and, hence, not covered under the term "Other waterway on any inland water" so as to be eligible for exemption of the Services by way of transportation of goods by inland waterways - as per the Google Earth Map, the General Lighterage Area of Magdalla Port (where the Mother Vessels are anchored), does not fall within the limit of the National Waterway 100-Tapi River as declared vide the National Waterways Act, 2016, therefore, contention, that the transportation is being done on the River Tapi, appears to be incorrect : AAR

2020-TIOL-141-AAR-GST

GST - Service of transportation of goods from Magdalla Port, Surat to its General Lighterage Area of Magdalla Port (From where the Mother Vessel are anchored) or vice versa, is neither covered in the definition of 'national waterways', as defined in Clause (h) of section 2 of the Inland Water Ways Authority of India Act, 1985 nor covered in the definition of 'other waterway on any inland water', as defined under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Inland Vessel Act, 1917 and consequently does not qualify for exemption under exemption contained at Sr. No. 18 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - The length of the waterway between which the service of transport is performed by the applicant, is the part of the "Arabian Sea" and not a part of any canal, river, lake or other navigable water within a State - Thus, contention of applicant that the transportation is being done on the River Tapi, appears to be incorrect - As regard the contention that the entire activity is being done by them under territorial water only, it is worthwhile to mention that the Arabian Sea is not a part of the State of Gujarat and, hence, not covered under the term "Other waterway on any inland water" so as to be eligible for exemption of the Services by way of transportation of goods by inland waterways - as per the Google Earth Map, the General Lighterage Area of Magdalla Port (where the Mother Vessels are anchored), does not fall within the limit of the National Waterway 100-Tapi River as declared vide the National Waterways Act, 2016, therefore, contention, that the transportation is being done on the River Tapi, appears to be incorrect : AAR

2020-TIOL-140-AAR-GST

GST - Fuel conversion electronic parts viz. change over switch, emulator, timing advance processor, pressure gauge mainly used to help the engine of vehicles namely, motor cars, vans, buses etc. to switch over/change the fuel from petrol to CNG/LPG and vice-versa and supplied by the applicant is classifiable under HSN Code 8708 9900 and is covered by Sr.No.170 of Schedule-IV of Notification No:1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as on which GST applicable is 28% (14% SGST + 14% CGST): AAR

2020-TIOL-139-AAR-GST

GST - Applicants are engaged in the business of purchasing LPG Gas (Bulk) through Tanker and thereafter, refilling the same in two types of bottles - 17 kgs. and 21 kgs. and sell it to Commercial Customer also refilling the gas in bottles of 12 kgs. and 15 kgs. and selling it to Domestic Customers - Applicant has sought a ruling on the following viz. (1) Determination of the liability to pay Tax on sales of Gas sold in Bottle to Commercial Customer and Gas sold in Bottle to Domestic Customer & (2) Entire I.T.C. @ 18% eligible on Purchases of LPG Gas (bulk) through Tanker?

Held: Applicant would be liable to pay 18% GST on the LPG sold by them to their Commercial Customers in terms of Sr.No.453 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax(Rate) - Also, they would be liable to pay 18% on the LPG sold to their Domestic Customers for the period upto 24.01.2018 under the said entry and GST @5% on the LPG sold to their Domestic Customers with effect from 25.01.2018 onwards in view of the amending Notification No: 06/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 inserting a new Serial no. 165A in Schedule I of the subject notification 1/2017-CTR - Applicant is eligible to take the entire input cenvat credit @ 18% on purchases of LPG Gas in bulk through Tanker subject to the fulfilment of the conditions/provisions (wherever applicable) for taking input tax credit as envisaged in Sections-16, 17 and 18 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules-36, 37, 40, 41 and 42 of the Rules, 2017: AAR

- Application disposed of :AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2020-TIOL-30-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Whirlpool Of India Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering by the respondent on the supply of ‘Refrigerator Whirlpool FP313D Protton Roy Mirror” by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f 01.07.2017 by way of commensurate reduction in the price - applicant relies on two invoices issued during the pre-GST and the post-GST period - DGAP in its report has submitted that the respondent has increased the basic price (excluding tax) of the impugned product although there was a reduction in the rate of tax after the introduction of GST inasmuch the commensurate benefit of reduction in the GST rate was not passed on to the recipients - DGAP after considering the revised details of the VAT reversal in lieu of CST, Entry Tax and the CST in Assam and Gujarat has stated that the average tax incidence in pre-GST period was about 30% and which got reduced to 28% on introduction of GST, however the tax incidence on introduction of GST had marginally increased in Delhi from 27.86% to 28% and in Haryana from 27.96% to 28% - DGAP has accordingly computed the amount of profiteering made by the respondent for failing to pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to the recipients in terms of s.171 of the Act and which comes to Rs.4,07,451/- including GST during the period July 2017 to August 2018 - the profiteered amount having been arrived at by comparing the State-wise average basic price (after discount) of the impugned goods during the period April to June 2017 with the transaction-wise basic price (after discount) during the period July 2017 to August 2018 for all the States (except Delhi and Haryana) where the tax incidence has increased on introduction of GST - Authority is of the view that the mathematical methodology of the DGAP appears to be correct, reasonable, justifiable and in consonance with the provisions of s.171 of the Act - profiteered amount of Rs.4,07,451/- has been rightly computed by the DGAP - respondent is directed to deposit the profiteered amount along with interest to be calculated @18% in the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Central and the State government concerned as per provisions of rule 133(3)(c) of the Rules in the ratio 50:50 - amount is to be deposited within three months - Commissioners concerned to submit report within four months - as respondent has denied the benefit of rate reduction of GST to its customers in contravention of s.171(1) of the Act, they are liable for imposition of penalty in terms of s.171(3A) of the Act r/w rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules, 2017; SCN to be issued in this regard - DGAP is also directed to further investigate in respect of other products on which rate of tax was reduced - read with notification 35/2020-CT, the present order is passed: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAA

NAA_IO_19_2020

Himalaya Drug Company

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged that the respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate w.e.f 15.11.2017 to his customers but had instead increased the base prices of his products by keeping the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) unchanged.

Held: DGAP has computed the profiteered amount by comparing the average pre-rate reduction base prices of the impacted products with the average post rate reduction base prices in respect of both the tax reductions - the above mathematical methodology adopted by DGAP to compute the profiteered amount is not in consonance with the methodology approved by the Authority in the case of tax reductions decided by it as the profiteered amount has been determined by comparing the average pre-rate reduction base prices with the actual post rate reduction prices - such a methodology is not correct, logical, appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - therefore, the report dated 22.10.2019 furnished by the DGAP cannot be accepted - DGAP is, therefore, directed to reinvestigate the case under rule 133(4) of the Rules on the three issues as mentioned in the order - reinvestigation to be completed within a period of three months and report to be submitted u/r 129(6) of the Rules - read with notification 35/2020-CT, the present Interim order is passed: NAA

- Interim order passed: INTRIM ORDER

SERVICE TAX

2020-TIOL-910-CESTAT-HYD

Manjeera Constructions Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - The assessee is engaged in construction business and developed and sold apartments to the prospective buyers - They were paying service tax regularly on all the services and stopped making payment of tax from January, 2009 in view of Circular 108/02/2009-ST and also intimated the same to department - For the composite contract executed for M/s Manjeera Project, the service tax was paid adopting the valuation as per Rule 2A of STR, 2006 i.e. deduction of materials value from the gross/invoice value, and paid service tax at full rate on the labour portion of the contract - The applicable service tax on rental incomes on property, maintenance/repair and consultancy was partly paid utilising the CENVAT credit and partly in cash - As it appeared to Revenue that there is some short payment of service tax, SCN was issued relating to the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 - Admittedly, assessee have supplied both material and labour/service in the contracts executed by them - Issue is no longer res-integra and it has been held by Supreme Court in case of Larsen & Toubro 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST that prior to 01.06.2007 only service contracts simplisitter are taxable under the existing classification of CICS, ICS and CCS - Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 34,91,178/- is set aside - There is no proposal in SCN to alternatively classify and demand tax under the head works contract services w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - The next issue is service tax liability on promoters/builder/developer prior to 01.06.2010 in respect of construction of residential complex - The CBEC by way of clarification vide Circular 108/02/2009-ST r/w Circular 151/2/2012-ST have clarified that for the period prior to 01.06.2010, construction(residential) provided by builder/developer will not be taxable - Admittedly, the tax under this category relates to the period prior to 01.06.2010 - It appeared to Revenue that the assessee have paid service tax on the labour component only after availing the benefit of composition but have paid service tax on material component, as per 'composition scheme' - The SCN on this issue is misconceived, as availment of 'composition scheme' is optional and such option is at the volition of assessee - The composition scheme cannot be imposed on assessee, as have been clarified by Ministry of Finance vide Circular B1/16/2007- TRU - Similar view has been taken by Tribunal in Interarch Building Products P. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-35-CESTAT-ALL - Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 1,32,29,790/- is set aside - No penalty is imposable under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, as the issues involved are interpretational in nature and the assessee have deposited the admitted taxes prior to issue of SCN along with interest - The assessee is liable to deposit, if any tax is found short paid on arithmetical verification - Assessee is also directed to file a calculation of their final tax liability with the details of payment of such tax liability before the adjudicating authority for his information and perusal: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-911-CESTAT-CHD

J B Rolling Mills Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE dt.10.6.2003 has been denied on the ground that the girder unit was not a new unit but an extension of the existing Unit-II, whose date of production continued to remain unchanged upto 30.8.2014.

Held: Core question is whether the girder unit is to be treated as separate independent unit or extension of the unit No-II or not? - Girder unit is a separate and independent unit and the finding in para 4.9 of the Commissioner's order is contrary to the certificate issued by the DIC office as well as physical verification report submitted by the Superintendent, Kala Amb, Central Excise - As the adjudicating authority misinterpreted the certificate issued by the DIC office, District Sirmour, therefore, the whole of the finding of the adjudicating authority has gone wrong, in that circumstance, the impugned order deserves no merit - girder unit is a separate and independent unit which is capable of manufacturing the MS girder on their own shall be treated new industrial unit which is eligible for exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE dt.10.6.2003 which started their production from 20.03.2010. Therefore, the same is eligible for benefit of exemption notification for clearance of their goods without payment of duty till 19.03.2020 - no merit in the impugned order, hence same is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 13 to 16]

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2020-TIOL-898-CESTAT-KOL

Himadri Speciality Chemicals Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE

CX - The assessee has preferred the instant appeal against demand of central excise duty alongwith equal penalty and applicable interest - It has been alleged that the assessee has removed capital goods during the period September 2011 in contravention of Notfn 22/2003-CE, as amended, r/w para 6.13(c) of FTP 2009-14 and Para 25 of Customs Law Manual, 2013 - The instant appeal can be decided on the ground of limitation itself without going into the merits - The impugned order cannot sustain on limitation in as much as the SCN was issued in September 2016 for the period in dispute of September 2011: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

Philips Lighting India Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The only issue involved is, whether the activity of affixing holograms on CFLs (revalidation process) carried out by assessee in its warehouse, amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of CEA, 1944 - The Tribunal have gone through the order passed by Commissioner, whereby all the proceedings initiated against assessee pertaining to all the warehouses including Kolkata warehouse, have been dropped on merits - All the proceedings against the assessee have been dropped by Commissioner by passing a common order holding that the said activity cannot be constituted as amounting to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f)(iii) of CEA, 1944 - Since the main appeal has been allowed on merits in favour of assessee, the present proceedings are only in respect of confiscation of goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine - The impugned order ordering confiscation of goods with an option to redeem the same, is not sustainable in law and therefore, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-1066-HC-MUM-CUS

Samir Patel Vs CC

Cus - The present writ was filed by the assessee, seeking that parcel containing Osmolite Nutrio N-Food for Tube Feeding Patient, as imported by the assessee be handed over to it.

Held - The respondent authorities are directed to process the documents received and ensure handover of the parcel - Any remaining formalities be carried out even after handing over of the parcel to the assessee: HC

2020-TIOL-896-CESTAT-CHD

CC Vs BE Office Automation Products Pvt Ltd

Cus - Appellant imported old and used digital multifunction devices with standard accessories and attachments of various models - The said products also known as Multifunction Devices are capable of scanning, printing and photocopy etc. - Assessable value of the said goods was revised on the strength of Chartered Engineer certificate – Order also held that the goods are liable for absolute connfirmation on the ground of violation of (i) Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 notified by MOEF and; (ii) Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 notified by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology and (iii) Para 2.31 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 notified by the Director General of Foreign Trade - Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the absolute confiscation of the goods and allowed clearances on payment of redemption fine at the rate of 75% of the enhanced value of the goods; Penalty u/s 112(a) was reduced to Rs. 2 Lakhs - In appeal before Tribunal, the appellant contends that no data of contemporaneous imports was shown and the assessable value was increased merely on the basis of Chartered Engineer certificate; that subsequent to the said import, all the other consignments of the appellant are being cleared regularly and, therefore, the Revenue appeal filed is contrary to its practice of releasing the goods during subsequent period.

Held: Revenue has sought to rely on the changes made in the FTP vide Notification No. 5/2015-2020 dated 07 May 2019 - It is seen that the said changes are subsequent to the date of import and thus have no impact on the present proceedings - Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue seeking confiscation of goods absolutely is dismissed – Insofar as the appeal by the assessee importer is concerned, the impugned order itself finds flaws in the Chartered Engineer certificate as the Chartered Engineer failed to obtain current market value of the said goods - The impugned order also does not indicate the Rule under which the value was revised - In these circumstances, revision of value by the lower authorities is not sustainable for want of evidence - The declared value is, therefore, accepted – As regards redemption fine and penalty imposed u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, the same are reduced to 10% and 5% of the assessable value, respectively, in view of the apex court decision in Atul Automation Pvt. Limited – 2019-TIOL-35-SC-CUS-LB – Assessee appeal is partly allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 7, 9, 10]

- Assessee appeal allowed/Revenue appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

TII

TP - If plant & machinery was used previously, it does not play crucial role in deciding entitlement for deduction u/s 10A: ITAT

TP - Assessee is entitled for deduction from its PLI towards capacity under-utilisation adjustment : ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

PMLA - Essential good and perishable item paddy which is lying in warehouse and required immediately for meeting demands caused by Pandemic COVID-19 can be allowed to be removed from there, pending suit under PMLA: HC

Patent Act - If infringed products cannot be directed to be destroyed, it is decided to allow sale of stock manufactured prior to passing of judgment upon compliance of certain terms issued to safeguard interest of plaintiff: HC