9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e restore the proposal made by the Joint Commissioner for grant of exemption certificate to the appellant as also the exemption certificates granted consequently. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with an additional capital of ₹ 500 crores shall be deemed to be treated as new units and all the benefits under the Industrial Policy of 1995 will be made available to them. It is pursuant to the said decision of the High Power Committee that a resolution was passed by the Government of Bihar amending the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1995 bringing it in conformity with the decision taken at the meeting of the High Power Committee on 21.7.1997. Subsequent to the above referred amendment, the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Industries, wrote a letter on 11.11.1997 stating that the Government has taken a decision that any investment over ₹ 500 crore would be taken as an expansion/diversification or a new unit, as such the appellant company will be entitled to all the reliefs under the Bihar Industrial Policy. In the said letter the Secretary also expressed the hope that the appellant will take necessary steps to set up a unit in Bihar as soon as possible. As a follow-up action on 10.1.1998, the Director of Technical Development, Department of Industries, State of Bihar wrote to the appellant expressing the happiness on the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication made thereunder, the appellant invested nearly ₹ 2000 crores on its new unit for the manufacture of CRMs, the commercial production of which commenced from 1.8.2000 which was verified by the Technical Officers of the Department of Industries, Bihar and certified as such by them. On 15.11.2000 under the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, a part of Bihar which included Jamshedpur, became a new State named as Jharkhand State. On 15.12.2000 by a notification, the Governor of Jharkhand ordered that the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1956 and the notification made thereunder, among other Acts, Rules and Regulations, shall be deemed to be in force in the entire State of Jharkhand w.e.f. 15.11.2000. On 21.12.2000, the successor State, namely, the State of Jharkhand issued the exemption certificate as contemplated under Notification Nos.478 and 479 dated 22.12.1995 by the Bihar State Finance (and Commercial Tax) Department exempting the new unit of the appellant from purchase tax as well as sales-tax on purchases and sales made in regard to the Cold Rolling Mill. This was pursuant to an order made by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems to have lost sight of the same and chose to rely upon Telengana Steel (supra) to come to the conclusion that the two products must be treated as the same commodity merely because they are found in the same Entry in the Act for the purpose of levy of sales-tax and if that be so under the policy and the notification unless the products are two different commodities the benefit of exemption was not available. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the appellant preferred a civil writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court by the impugned judgment, accepted the appellants' case in all other respects including the effect of the judgment of this Court in K.A.K. Anwar & Co.'s case (supra) and came to the conclusion that merely because two commodities are shown in the same Entry in the Central Sales Tax Act, it would not ipso facto make the two commodities the same commodities. It also recorded the concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State who had submitted that all other issues raised in the writ petition have to be answered in favour of the appellant. The Court also held that the only issue to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant in its old unit which is known as Hot Rolled Mill product or HRM. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant submits the correspondence between the State of Bihar and the appellant clearly shows that the new unit was being established for the manufacture of CRM and the appellant had no intention to increase the production of its HRM in the existing factory. It accepted the proposal of the State Government to invest such a huge amount of money because CRM is a new product used in the manufacture of certain sophisticated equipments for which HRM cannot be the raw-material. He submitted that from the various reports furnished by the appellant making known the process of manufacture, the inputs and the equipments required for such manufacture, it is clear that the product they manufacture in the new unit is only CRM. He further submitted that even the report submitted after inspection by the representatives of the Industries Department also establishes the same fact. Learned counsel pointed out that the Joint Commissioner while holding the two products to be different commodities had considered various materials to come to the said conclusion, and has given reasons f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of camouflage tried to put up a plant which only manufactures HRM. As a matter of fact, it was not the case of the respondent-State that in fact the product manufactured by the appellant in the new unit is not CRM. It could not have been the case either because in our opinion a careful reading of the letter of the Director of Technical Developent, Bihar, dated 9.8.2000 wherein he has referred to a team of Technical Officers who visited the unit of the appellant, had reported that the commercial production was CRM and on verification, production of the same was found to have started hence they recommended that a declaration be given in regard to the same w.e.f. 1.8.2000. These Technical Officers who we must presume have seen the product, have nowhere stated that the products manufactured were not CRM nor has the respondent-State repudiated this letter or challenged the correctness of the same. As noticed above, even the Commissioner who initiated suo motu revision, did not disagree with the finding of the Joint Commissioner given on facts that the product is CRM. He only proceeded on a technicality relying on an erroneous judgment. In the writ petition filed by the appellant the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant is CRM or not and the said Joint Commissioner having given a positive finding and that finding having not been interfered with by the Commissioner, we think the High Court erred in remanding the matter for fresh inquiry. It is true that normally as against an order of remand this Court hesitates to interfere since there is always another opportunity for an aggrieved party to establish its case. But in this case we should notice the decision to establish an industrial unit was initiated by the appellant as far back as in the year 1997. Based on a promise made in the industrial policy of the State of Bihar, at every stage the appellants tried to verify and confirm whether they are entitled to the benefit of exemption or not and they were assured of that exemption. It is based on these assurances that the appellant invested a huge sum of money which according to the appellant is to the tune of ₹ 2,000 crore but the State says it may be to the tune of ₹ 1,400 crore. Whatever may be the figure, the fact still remains that the appellants have invested huge sums of money in installing its new industrial unit. At every stage of the construction, progress and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
