Case: M/S. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. State Of U.P.

2. Glaxo India Ltd., set up an industrial unit at Aligarh for the manufacture of what is sold in the market under the brand names Glacto, Complan, Farex, Glucon D and other products generically called milk foods/weaning foods and energy beverages. It is not in dispute that the manufacturing process undertaken in the said unit produced ghee as a by- product of the said items. It is also not in dispute that with effect from 1st October, 1994, the Family Products Division of Glaxo India Ltd. was taken over by Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. who continued manufacturing the products mentioned above including ghee as a by-product of its manufacturing activity.3. In terms of Section 17(iii) of the Act, sale of specified agricultural produce within the Mandi limits attracts levy of what is described as Mandi Fee from the person effecting the sale. The Mandi Samiti accordingly started demanding the said fee from Glaxo India Ltd., upto the year 1994 and from Heinz India Ltd., from 1994 onwards qua sales effected by the said two companies of its products including ghee. These demands were resisted by both the companies primarily on the ground that bulk of the ghee produced in their unit at Aligarh, if not the entire quantity, was sent out of the Mandi limits on stock transfer basis and that there was no sale involved in such transfers so as to attract the levy of the Mandi Fee on the same. Even so, the companies appear to have continued removing their goods from the Mandi limits in accordance with the procedure in vogue at the relevant time. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Ors. v. Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Works & Ors. (1995) Supp (3) SCC 433, decided on 2nd February, 1995, this Court noticed the Explanation to Section 17(iii) of the Act and observed that there was a presumption against the dealers. This Court held that in view of the said presumption it is open to the Mandi Samiti to raise demands against the dealers before the issue of passes. If there is a valid rebuttal to the presumption and it is shown that no sale took place within the notified market area the dealers will be entitled to the passes, otherwise not. This Court further held that even if the dealers are compelled to pay the market fee as demanded it shall be open to them to challenge the same in the manner provided under the Act. This implied that if the claim of the dealers that the goods were not being removed pursuant to any sale transaction was rejected and a demand for payment of Mandi Fee raised, the aggrieved dealer could question that demand in appropriate proceedings.4. It is evident from a reading of the order passed by the Mandi Parishad that the earlier procedure of issuing free gate passes remained in vogue upto February, 1995, whereafter the Mandi Samiti started issuing gate passes only on payment of the Mandi Fee demanded by it. This change came about as a result of the aforementioned decision of this Court in Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Works (supra). Subsequently, in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. M/s Saraswati Cane Crusher & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1769-1773 of 1998), decided on 25th March, 1998 this Court prescribed the procedure to be followed in the matter of issue of gate passes, making of provisional assessment and the time frame for making a finalare satisfied that the orders of this Court afore-referred to would need some repair work. We treat the said order to be conceiving of a provisional assessment where after doors are opened for a final assessment. We conceive that when demands are raised by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti against a trader before he could ask for transit of goods outside the market area, the trader would be entitled to tender a valid rebuttal to say that no sale had taken place within the notified area and that if the explanation is accepted there and then by the Mandi Samiti, no question of payment would arise as also of withholding the gate passes. If prima facie evidence led by the trader is not accepted by the Mandi Samiti, the trader or the dealer can be compelled to pay the market fee as demanded before issuance of gate pass. If the trader makes the payment without demur, the matter ends and the assessment finalized. But in case he does so and raises protest, then the assessment shall be taken to be provisional in nature making it obligatory on the trader to pay the fee before obtaining the requisite gate pass. After protest has been lodged and the provisional assessment has been made, a time frame would be needed to devise making the final assessment. We, therefore, conceive that it innately be read in the order of this Court that a final assessment has to be made within a period of two months after provisional assessment so that the entire transaction in that respect is over enabling the aggrieved party, if any, to challenge the final assessment in the manner provided under the afore Act or under the general law of the land in appropriate fora. Having added this concept in this manner in the two Judge Bench decision of this Court, we declare that what repair has been done instantly would add to the order of the High Court and the instant corrective decision shall be the governing rule. The Civil Appeals would thus stand disposed of.Since the assessment thus far made against the traders, who are involved in the instant appeals, would have to be treated as provisional awaiting final assessment, we permit the concerned traders to move the respective Mandi Samiti within two months from today to hear their objections and proceedings onwards be regulated in accordance with procedure devised hereinbefore. Nonetheless we add that should the basis of provisional assessment be knocked off, the Samiti would refund the market fee to the traders/dealers within two months thereafter.Suffice it to say that according to the above decision the dealers could make a claim for the refund of the amount paid by them on furnishing of proof of the fact that the goods had moved out of the mandi area without being subjected to a transaction of sale.6. What is important for the present is that Heinz made claims for the refund of the amount paid by it towards market fee and furnished to the Mandi Samiti material to support that claim. The material so produced was then evaluated by the Mandi Samiti who came to the conclusion that the same was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that the removal of goods from the Mandi limits was pursuant to a sale effected within such limits. The claim for refund of the amount paid by the appellant-Heinz was accordingly rejected by the Mandi Samiti in terms of the orders referred to earlier.7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Mandi Samiti both Glaxo India Ltd. and Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. filed revision petitions before the Director, Mandi Parishad, invoking his jurisdiction under Section 32 read with Section 33 of the Act as a delegate of the Mandi Parishad. By his order dated 24th October, 1996, the Director dismissed the revision petitions, aggrieved whereof the companies filed Writ Petitions before the High Court of Allahabad. These Writ Petitions were eventually allowed by the High Court in terms of an order dated 3rd April, 1997, and the matter remitted back to the Director for a fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law.8. The Director accordingly heard the revision petition afresh, re- appraised the material relied upon by the companies in support of their claim for refund and came to the conclusion that the claim of the companies for refund remained unsubstantiated and the presumption arising under the Explanation to Section 17(iii) un-rebutted. The DirectorNeither the evidences produced by Revisionist company with the details of information of sale has been given to C & F Agent with dates on the basis of which C & F Agent would deliver the goods to the buyer after receipt of payment nor any instance has been produced for giving required instructions to C & F Agent regarding the sale of goods and nor even any evidence has been produced. In this way, the evidence produced regarding the actual mode of sale at the place of destination as to how and by whom it is being done, are contradictory or are missing. Mandi Samiti gave time to revisionist for clarifying and proving this sale process but, the revisionist has not been able to produce clear case and desired evidence on this subject till date.(4) When the chain related to the sale at the place of destination in accordance with aforesaid through stock transfer breaks then while keeping in view the declaration given under Excise Rule 52(A)/173C, two possibilities appear. First is that the sale agreement for deal at the place of destination and according to marketing system given in letter dated 4.1.95 it may be, that the Revisionist company by itself or through its marketing staff who might be visiting the place of destination give the delivery of goods to C & F Agent by fixing before the arrival of goods at the place of destination after receiving amount of money in the form of bank draft and pay order which resulted in the sale having taken place from the factory at Aligarh office because the direct contact of buyer with revisionist took place at Aligarh or it took place through the employees/officers of revisionists marketing department at Aligarh and they were given the delivery on that basis only.xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx19. In this way by the analysis and close consideration of said paras 16, 17 and 18 it is concluded that under the arrangement given by Honble Supreme Court in 1995 (Supp.3) S.C.C. 433 the sale taking place in the matter of M/s Mahalaxmi Sugar Works, Revisionists disputed transmitted and its sale taking place at the place of destination by taking stock outside the mandi area in the form of stock transfer and the concept of taking out the sale under explanation of 17(3)(B), it has failed to prove by producing counter valid rebuttal of concept because according to the case went for revision on stock transfer and place of destination it has failed to tell the presence by producing the best chain of evidence for proving....Writ Petition Nos. 2320(M/S), 2516(M/S), 2517(M/S), 2518(M/S), 2519(M/S), 250(M/S), 226(M/S) and 2527(M/S) of 1997 filed by Glaxo India Ltd., before the High Court of Allahabad challenged the correctness of the above order. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. also filed Writ Petition Nos. 2323(M/S), 2321(M/S), 2322(M/S), 2324(M/S), 2325(M/S), 2326(M/S), 2474(M/S), 2475(M/S), 2476(M/S), 2477(M/S) and 2478(M/S) of 1997 before the High Court challenging the same order. The High Court, however, concurred with the view taken by the Mandi Samiti and the Director of the Parishad and dismissed the writ petitions by its order dated 20th August, 2004. The High Court held that the material produced by the companies did not make out a case for refund for it did not rebut the presumption that ghee produced in the companys unit at Aligarh was not sold from Aligarh or that the stocks of ghee had been transferred outside the Mandi limit on consignment basis. The High Court gave several reasons for holding that the material produced by the companies in support of their claim that the so called sales were in fact stock transfer was either not reliable or was deficient. High Court also held that the companies had withheld the best evidence available to them without offering any explanation for doing so. The High Courtlong and short of the discussions made above is that the petitioners have miserably failed to rebut the presumption of sale in the market area at Aligarh and therefore, the Director and the assessing authorities rightly levied the Mandi fee on the consignments of Ghee transported by Glaxo and its successor Heinz India Private Limited to other States. The judgments passed by the Revisional Authority are not perverse so as to be interfered with by this Court; rather all the questioned judgments are well discussed and reasoned. In the result, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief.The present appeals assail the above order as already mentioned.Glaxo India Ltd., set up an industrial unit at Aligarh for the manufacture of what is sold in the market under the brand names Glacto, Complan, Farex, Glucon D and other products generically called milk foods/weaning foods and energy beverages. It is not in dispute that the manufacturing process undertaken in the said unit produced ghee as a by- product of the said items. It is also not in dispute that with effect from 1st October, 1994, the Family Products Division of Glaxo India Ltd. was taken over by Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. who continued manufacturing the products mentioned above including ghee as a by-product of its manufacturing activity.3. In terms of Section 17(iii) of the Act, sale of specified agricultural produce within the Mandi limits attracts levy of what is described as Mandi Fee from the person effecting the sale. The Mandi Samiti accordingly started demanding the said fee from Glaxo India Ltd., upto the year 1994 and from Heinz India Ltd., from 1994 onwards qua sales effected by the said two companies of its products including ghee. These demands were resisted by both the companies primarily on the ground that bulk of the ghee produced in their unit at Aligarh, if not the entire quantity, was sent out of the Mandi limits on stock transfer basis and that there was no sale involved in such transfers so as to attract the levy of the Mandi Fee on the same. Even so, the companies appear to have continued removing their goods from the Mandi limits in accordance with the procedure in vogue at the relevant time. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Ors. v. Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Works & Ors. (1995) Supp (3) SCC 433, decided on 2nd February, 1995, this Court noticed the Explanation to Section 17(iii) of the Act and observed that there was a presumption against the dealers. This Court held that in view of the said presumption it is open to the Mandi Samiti to raise demands against the dealers before the issue of passes. If there is a valid rebuttal to the presumption and it is shown that no sale took place within the notified market area the dealers will be entitled to the passes, otherwise not. This Court further held that even if the dealers are compelled to pay the market fee as demanded it shall be open to them to challenge the same in the manner provided under the Act. This implied that if the claim of the dealers that the goods were not being removed pursuant to any sale transaction was rejected and a demand for payment of Mandi Fee raised, the aggrieved dealer could question that demand in appropriate proceedings.4. It is evident from a reading of the order passed by the Mandi Parishad that the earlier procedure of issuing free gate passes remained in vogue upto February, 1995, whereafter the Mandi Samiti started issuing gate passes only on payment of the Mandi Fee demanded by it. This change came about as a result of the aforementioned decision of this Court in Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Works (supra). Subsequently, in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. M/s Saraswati Cane Crusher & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1769-1773 of 1998), decided on 25th March, 1998 this Court prescribed the procedure to be followed in the matter of issue of gate passes, making of provisional assessment and the time frame for making a finale satisfied that the orders of this Court afore-referred to would need some repair work. We treat the said order to be conceiving of a provisional assessment where after doors are opened for a final assessment. We conceive that when demands are raised by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti against a trader before he could ask for transit of goods outside the market area, the trader would be entitled to tender a valid rebuttal to say that no sale had taken place within the notified area and that if the explanation is accepted there and then by the Mandi Samiti, no question of payment would arise as also of withholding the gate passes. If prima facie evidence led by the trader is not accepted by the Mandi Samiti, the trader or the dealer can be compelled to pay the market fee as demanded before issuance of gate pass. If the trader makes the payment without demur, the matter ends and the assessment finalized. But in case he does so and raises protest, then the assessment shall be taken to be provisional in nature making it obligatory on the trader to pay the fee before obtaining the requisite gate pass. After protest has been lodged and the provisional assessment has been made, a time frame would be needed to devise making the final assessment. We, therefore, conceive that it innately be read in the order of this Court that a final assessment has to be made within a period of two months after provisional assessment so that the entire transaction in that respect is over enabling the aggrieved party, if any, to challenge the final assessment in the manner provided under the afore Act or under the general law of the land in appropriate fora. Having added this concept in this manner in the two Judge Bench decision of this Court, we declare that what repair has been done instantly would add to the order of the High Court and the instant corrective decision shall be the governing rule. The Civil Appeals would thus stand disposed of.Since the assessment thus far made against the traders, who are involved in the instant appeals, would have to be treated as provisional awaiting final assessment, we permit the concerned traders to move the respective Mandi Samiti within two months from today to hear their objections and proceedings onwards be regulated in accordance with procedure devised hereinbefore. Nonetheless we add that should the basis of provisional assessment be knocked off, the Samiti would refund the market fee to the traders/dealers within two months thereafter.Suffice it to say that according to the above decision the dealers could make a claim for the refund of the amount paid by them on furnishing of proof of the fact that the goods had moved out of the mandi area without being subjected to a transaction of sale.6. What is important for the present is that Heinz made claims for the refund of the amount paid by it towards market fee and furnished to the Mandi Samiti material to support that claim. The material so produced was then evaluated by the Mandi Samiti who came to the conclusion that the same was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that the removal of goods from the Mandi limits was pursuant to a sale effected within such limits. The claim for refund of the amount paid by the appellant-Heinz was accordingly rejected by the Mandi Samiti in terms of the orders referred to earlier.7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Mandi Samiti both Glaxo India Ltd. and Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. filed revision petitions before the Director, Mandi Parishad, invoking his jurisdiction under Section 32 read with Section 33 of the Act as a delegate of the Mandi Parishad. By his order dated 24th October, 1996, the Director dismissed the revision petitions, aggrieved whereof the companies filed Writ Petitions before the High Court of Allahabad. These Writ Petitions were eventually allowed by the High Court in terms of an order dated 3rd April, 1997, and the matter remitted back to the Director for a fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law.8. The Director accordingly heard the revision petition afresh, re- appraised the material relied upon by the companies in support of their claim for refund and came to the conclusion that the claim of the companies for refund remained unsubstantiated and the presumption arising under the Explanation to Section 17(iii) un-rebutted. The Directorr the evidences produced by Revisionist company with the details of information of sale has been given to C & F Agent with dates on the basis of which C & F Agent would deliver the goods to the buyer after receipt of payment nor any instance has been produced for giving required instructions to C & F Agent regarding the sale of goods and nor even any evidence has been produced. In this way, the evidence produced regarding the actual mode of sale at the place of destination as to how and by whom it is being done, are contradictory or are missing. Mandi Samiti gave time to revisionist for clarifying and proving this sale process but, the revisionist has not been able to produce clear case and desired evidence on this subject till date.(4) When the chain related to the sale at the place of destination in accordance with aforesaid through stock transfer breaks then while keeping in view the declaration given under Excise Rule 52(A)/173C, two possibilities appear. First is that the sale agreement for deal at the place of destination and according to marketing system given in letter dated 4.1.95 it may be, that the Revisionist company by itself or through its marketing staff who might be visiting the place of destination give the delivery of goods to C & F Agent by fixing before the arrival of goods at the place of destination after receiving amount of money in the form of bank draft and pay order which resulted in the sale having taken place from the factory at Aligarh office because the direct contact of buyer with revisionist took place at Aligarh or it took place through the employees/officers of revisionists marketing department at Aligarh and they were given the delivery on that basis only.xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx19. In this way by the analysis and close consideration of said paras 16, 17 and 18 it is concluded that under the arrangement given by Honble Supreme Court in 1995 (Supp.3) S.C.C. 433 the sale taking place in the matter of M/s Mahalaxmi Sugar Works, Revisionists disputed transmitted and its sale taking place at the place of destination by taking stock outside the mandi area in the form of stock transfer and the concept of taking out the sale under explanation of 17(3)(B), it has failed to prove by producing counter valid rebuttal of concept because according to the case went for revision on stock transfer and place of destination it has failed to tell the presence by producing the best chain of evidence for proving....Writ Petition Nos. 2320(M/S), 2516(M/S), 2517(M/S), 2518(M/S), 2519(M/S), 250(M/S), 226(M/S) and 2527(M/S) of 1997 filed by Glaxo India Ltd., before the High Court of Allahabad challenged the correctness of the above order. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. also filed Writ Petition Nos. 2323(M/S), 2321(M/S), 2322(M/S), 2324(M/S), 2325(M/S), 2326(M/S), 2474(M/S), 2475(M/S), 2476(M/S), 2477(M/S) and 2478(M/S) of 1997 before the High Court challenging the same order. The High Court, however, concurred with the view taken by the Mandi Samiti and the Director of the Parishad and dismissed the writ petitions by its order dated 20th August, 2004. The High Court held that the material produced by the companies did not make out a case for refund for it did not rebut the presumption that ghee produced in the companys unit at Aligarh was not sold from Aligarh or that the stocks of ghee had been transferred outside the Mandi limit on consignment basis. The High Court gave several reasons for holding that the material produced by the companies in support of their claim that the so called sales were in fact stock transfer was either not reliable or was deficient. High Court also held that the companies had withheld the best evidence available to them without offering any explanation for doing so. The High Courtg and short of the discussions made above is that the petitioners have miserably failed to rebut the presumption of sale in the market area at Aligarh and therefore, the Director and the assessing authorities rightly levied the Mandi fee on the consignments of Ghee transported by Glaxo and its successor Heinz India Private Limited to other States. The judgments passed by the Revisional Authority are not perverse so as to be interfered with by this Court; rather all the questioned judgments are well discussed and reasoned. In the result, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief.e present appeals assail the above order as already

Court's reasoning:
So long as there is statutory sanction for the Director to exercise the revisional power vested in the Board, any argument that such a delegation is either impermissible or does not serve the purpose of providing a suitable machinery for adjudication of the disputes shall have to be rejected. It is noteworthy that Rule 133-A of the Rules framed under the Act regulates the filing and disposal of the revision petitions under Section 32 thereof. This provision was inserted with effect from 11th May, 2008 and empowers the Board either to decide the revision petition itself or to nominate an officer for doing so. It also provides for grant of an opportunity of being heard to the person concerned and a time bound disposal of the revision. Rule 133-A is, therefore, a step in the direction of providing a machinery under the Act for adjudication of disputes that may arise between dealers on the one hand and the market committee on the other. That being so, the Act is not completely bereft of a machinery nor can it be said that the observations made by this Court in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumars case (supra) have gone unheeded. All that we need to add is that in order to make the Boards revisional power more effective and its exercise more transparent and credible, the Board would do well to delegate the power of hearing and disposal of the revision petitions to a senior and experienced officer who is well-versed in dealing with legal issues concerning assessment and/or determination of the liability under the Act. Beyond that it is neither necessary nor proper for us to sayheightened standard of proof required to rebut a presumption raised under the statute at hand is in our view applicable for two distinct reasons. The first and foremost is that the presumption is raised in relation to a fiscal statute. While the amount payable is not a tax it is nevertheless a statutory levy which is attracted the moment the transaction of sale takes place within the market area. Goods, admittedly produced within the market area and not consumed within such area are presumed to be leaving pursuant to a transaction of sale unless the contrary is proved. That the goods are produced within the market area is not in dispute in the instant case. That they left the market area is also admitted. In the ordinary course, therefore, the presumption would be that the goods left pursuant to a sale unless the appellants are in a position to prove the contrary.40. The second reason for applying a higher standard of proof than mere preponderance of probability is that the nature of transaction pursuant to which the goods are removed from the market area is within the exclusive knowledge of the appellants or the persons to whom such goods are being dispatched. In other words, the circumstances in which the transactions, which the statute presumes to be sales, but which the appellants claim are simple transfer of stocks are within the exclusive knowledge of the appellants. The entire evidence relevant to the transactions, being available only with the appellants and the true nature of the transactions being within their special knowledge, there is no reason why the rebuttal evidence should not satisfy the higher standard of proof and clearly and convincingly establish that the fact presumed is not the actual fact. Our answer to Question No.2 accordingly is that the evidence intended to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam ought to be clear and convincing evidence showing that what is presumed under the provision is not the real fact.In the light of the legal position stated in the earlier part of this order, it is neither feasible for us to embark upon an exercise of re- appreciating the entire material or to substitute our own findings for those recorded by the Mandi Samiti and the Director/Mandi Parishad. So long as the finding recorded by the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Parishad are not irrational or perverse, and so long as the view taken by them is a reasonably possible view, this Court would not interfere.58. In course of arguments at the Bar, we repeatedly asked Mr. Chandra as to why the appellants had failed to adduce the material which would throw a flood of light as to the true nature of the transaction within or outside the mandi area. Mr. Chandras reply was that the material was available and could be produced if so required. Some of this material which was with the appellant but was not produced was sought to be introduced even at the stage of hearing before us, while the rest could, argued Mr. Chandra be laid before the Samiti, if an opportunity to do so could be granted to the appellant.59. We regret our inability to accede to any such request. We do not think that a party who has had ample opportunity before the authorities below, to substantiate its claim can have the luxury of either producing material for the first time in the Supreme Court or ask for a remand to enable it to do what it ought to have done at the appropriate stage. It was not the contention of the appellants that they were not given a fair opportunity to prove their case before the authorities below. As a matter of fact, orders passed by the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Parishad show that sufficient opportunity was indeed afforded to the appellants and the matter had remained pending for a number of years before those authorities.So also, no remand ought to be made only to enable a party to produce additional material. A remand is neither mechanical nor a routine affair. If there is nothing wrong in the orders under challenge, there is no question of interference with the same. There is no reason for this Court to set the clock back and start a process which would take the parties another decade or so to come to terms with thelong as there is statutory sanction for the Director to exercise the revisional power vested in the Board, any argument that such a delegation is either impermissible or does not serve the purpose of providing a suitable machinery for adjudication of the disputes shall have to be rejected. It is noteworthy that Rule 133-A of the Rules framed under the Act regulates the filing and disposal of the revision petitions under Section 32 thereof. This provision was inserted with effect from 11th May, 2008 and empowers the Board either to decide the revision petition itself or to nominate an officer for doing so. It also provides for grant of an opportunity of being heard to the person concerned and a time bound disposal of the revision. Rule 133-A is, therefore, a step in the direction of providing a machinery under the Act for adjudication of disputes that may arise between dealers on the one hand and the market committee on the other. That being so, the Act is not completely bereft of a machinery nor can it be said that the observations made by this Court in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumars case (supra) have gone unheeded. All that we need to add is that in order to make the Boards revisional power more effective and its exercise more transparent and credible, the Board would do well to delegate the power of hearing and disposal of the revision petitions to a senior and experienced officer who is well-versed in dealing with legal issues concerning assessment and/or determination of the liability under the Act. Beyond that it is neither necessary nor proper for us to sayd standard of proof required to rebut a presumption raised under the statute at hand is in our view applicable for two distinct reasons. The first and foremost is that the presumption is raised in relation to a fiscal statute. While the amount payable is not a tax it is nevertheless a statutory levy which is attracted the moment the transaction of sale takes place within the market area. Goods, admittedly produced within the market area and not consumed within such area are presumed to be leaving pursuant to a transaction of sale unless the contrary is proved. That the goods are produced within the market area is not in dispute in the instant case. That they left the market area is also admitted. In the ordinary course, therefore, the presumption would be that the goods left pursuant to a sale unless the appellants are in a position to prove the contrary.40. The second reason for applying a higher standard of proof than mere preponderance of probability is that the nature of transaction pursuant to which the goods are removed from the market area is within the exclusive knowledge of the appellants or the persons to whom such goods are being dispatched. In other words, the circumstances in which the transactions, which the statute presumes to be sales, but which the appellants claim are simple transfer of stocks are within the exclusive knowledge of the appellants. The entire evidence relevant to the transactions, being available only with the appellants and the true nature of the transactions being within their special knowledge, there is no reason why the rebuttal evidence should not satisfy the higher standard of proof and clearly and convincingly establish that the fact presumed is not the actual fact. Our answer to Question No.2 accordingly is that the evidence intended to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam ought to be clear and convincing evidence showing that what is presumed under the provision is not the real fact.In the light of the legal position stated in the earlier part of this order, it is neither feasible for us to embark upon an exercise of re- appreciating the entire material or to substitute our own findings for those recorded by the Mandi Samiti and the Director/Mandi Parishad. So long as the finding recorded by the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Parishad are not irrational or perverse, and so long as the view taken by them is a reasonably possible view, this Court would not interfere.58. In course of arguments at the Bar, we repeatedly asked Mr. Chandra as to why the appellants had failed to adduce the material which would throw a flood of light as to the true nature of the transaction within or outside the mandi area. Mr. Chandras reply was that the material was available and could be produced if so required. Some of this material which was with the appellant but was not produced was sought to be introduced even at the stage of hearing before us, while the rest could, argued Mr. Chandra be laid before the Samiti, if an opportunity to do so could be granted to the appellant.59. We regret our inability to accede to any such request. We do not think that a party who has had ample opportunity before the authorities below, to substantiate its claim can have the luxury of either producing material for the first time in the Supreme Court or ask for a remand to enable it to do what it ought to have done at the appropriate stage. It was not the contention of the appellants that they were not given a fair opportunity to prove their case before the authorities below. As a matter of fact, orders passed by the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Parishad show that sufficient opportunity was indeed afforded to the appellants and the matter had remained pending for a number of years before those authorities.