9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in appeal No. 71 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal quashed an order passed by the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the respondent s application for the grant of an eligibility certificate. The Tribunal directed the Divisional Level Committee to issue an eligibility certificate. 4.. Revision Petition No. 56 of 1999 is directed against an order dated January 21, 1997 passed by the Tribunal in appeal No. 56 of 1997 whereby allowing the said appeal, the Tribunal set aside an order passed by the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the respondent s application for the grant of an eligibility certificate under section 4-A(3) of the Act and directing it to grant the same. 5.. Revision Petitions Nos. 7, 8 and 10 of 1998 are directed against an order dated September 26, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal whereby it set aside the orders passed by the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the applications of the respondents for the grant of an eligibility certificate and directed it to grant the same. 6.. The last revision petition, i.e., No. 95 of 1998 is directed against an order dated March 16, 1998 passed by the Tribunal whereby it set aside an order passed by the Divisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The Commissioner has observed that SSF is a kind of coal and that there was no dispute about it. There was no contest between the parties on this point in these revision petitions as well and it was admitted that SSF is also a kind of coal. The Commissioner has stated that SSF is prepared by removing smoke from the coal through some process and that the same process is adopted in the manufacture of coal briquettes also and that SSF and coal briquettes are both fuel. The Commissioner referred to a letter dated October 14, 1993 from the Government of U.P. in which the Government took the view that smokeless coal is a kind of coal and hence is an item prohibited by annexure II of the notification dated July 27, 1991. The Commissioner has not referred to any expert opinion on the point though the dealers had placed the same before him. The expert opinion is contained in a letter dated April 28, 1997, by the Central Mine, Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL). A copy of this letter has been placed by the respondent, M/s. R.K. Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd., in T.T.R. No. 60 of 1999 and is at page 55 of its counter-affidavit. The relevant portion of the letter is as under: In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Commissioner has just avoided a reference to this letter and has not mentioned any other expert opinion on the point. The Tribunal in its leading order in the case of Pandit Fuel Co. Pvt. Ltd., has referred to some other materials also. It has referred to the opinion of the Coal Controller which is as under: This office has been considering SSF as an industrial product and hence it has been kept out of the purview of Colliery Control Order both in respect of pricing and distribution. This clarification is being given on the request of some of the manufacturers. The Tribunal has also referred to a write up sent by the CMPDIL to M/s. Pandit Fuel Co. Pvt. Ltd., which has been reproduced by the Tribunal as under: Special smokeless fuel and coal briquettes: Through both special smokeless fuel and coal briquettes are used as domestic fuel, there are distinct differences between the two in respect of the product and technology. Financial investment and economics of these two plants are also different. Products: Special smokeless fuel (SSF) is produced in the size range of 30-100 mm. and has no regular shape whereas coal briquettes are produced by compressing the coa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of annexure II should be construed rather strictly. Therefore, the commodities that are mentioned in annexure II have to be given their ordinary and common sense meaning and cannot be stretched to unreasonable extent so as to bring within their scope things that have no similarity with the commodities mentioned therein. Simply because SSF and coal briquettes are both used as fuel, the two cannot be treated to be the same when the entry in annexure II does not use the general words like fuel or coal . If the intention of the Government was to deny the benefit of exemption under section 4-A to all units manufacturing fuel or coal then the two entries at serial Nos. 11 and 16 should have been different and entry No. 16 could not have been specifically restricted to hard coke when admittedly there are several varieties of coal. As pointed out by the CMPDIL in manufacturing SSF, the pieces of coal that are fed into the process do not loose their shape and coal-tar is obtained as a by-product while coal briquettes are manufactured out of coal dust by using binders like molasses and other things and there is no by-product. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on State of Bihar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at length, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that SSF produced by the respondents does not fall in any of the prohibited items mentioned in annexure II of the notification dated July 27, 1991. 14.. The learned counsel for the respondent in T.T.R. No. 60 of 1999 raised another point as well. His contention was that the Divisional Level Committee granted the eligibility certificate on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the question whether the commodity in question fell in the prohibited category was the subject-matter of consideration and the Divisional Level Committee having decided to issue the eligibility certificate to the respondent and having issued the eligibility certificate dated August 25, 1994, copy of which has been placed as annexure CA 1 to the counter-affidavit, the Commissioner had a right of appeal against the decision of the Divisional Level Committee by virtue of an amendment in section 10(2) of the Act effective from May 14, 1994 and, therefore, he could not have taken a different view on the subject in exercise of powers under section 4-A(3) for this. He placed reliance on my judgment in Mansarovar Bottl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
