1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 109 of 2001 M/S. SANJAY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS(P.) LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJ.& ORS Mr. BL PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MUKUL SINGHVI, DY.G.C., for the respondent Date of Order : 3.11.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. JUDGMENT Mr. M.C. Purohit appeared and submitted that he was earlier counsel in the matter, but now he is no more continuing as a counsel, and the matter is being handled by Govt. Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. Mukul Singhvi appeared for the respondents. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The controversy precisely is, as to whether the petitioner-unit falls within the parameters of Small Scale Industry, or Medium Scale Industry. For deciding this controversy, the question is, as to value of which items is to be included in plant and machinery, and which items are to be included in Miscellaneous Factory Assets (MFA). In the present case, some parts of the machinery were treated by the Industries Department as part of plant and machinery, being initial primary blade and set of segment, 2 while according to the petitioner, they were spare parts, or consumables, and therefore, constituted (MFA), and their value could not be added in the value of plant and machinery, and if that were to be done, the unit fulfil the parameters of Small Scale Industry, in which event, it would be entitled to subsidy of 30%, while treating it as a Medium Scale Industry, subsidy at 20% has been sanctioned. A review petition was filed, and the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 15.3.1999, again considered the matter, and found them to be part of plant and machinery, and did not find the petitioner to be falling within the category of Small Scale Industry. It may be noticed here that the matter was earlier decided in the meeting dated 29.10.1993, challenging that, a writ petition was filed, but then in view of pendency of review petition, the writ was disposed of with a direction to decide the review petition by 30th March 1999. Accordingly, the same was decided on 15.3.1999 vide Annex.6. Arguing the appeal it was sought to be contended, that earlier the parameters were laid down vide Annex.9, and 10, according to which in arriving at a conclusion, as to whether the unit falls within the definition of Small Scale Industry, cost of equipment such as tools, jigs, dies, moulds and spare parts, and the cost of consumables spares would be excluded in computing the value of the plant and machinery. Similarly, cost of installation of plant and machinery will also be excluded. It is contended, that subsequently, a fresh circular was issued on 27.4.1993, which was considered, and on that basis, the decision has been arrived it. 3 It would suffice to say, that the items, the cost of which the petitioner seeks to be excluded, in our view, even on the parameters laid down in Annex.10, are not eligible for exclusion, as they do not fall within the description of tools, jigs, dies, moulds, or spare parts, rather the articles, being initial set of blades in a marble and granite unit, would obviously be essential constituent of plant and machinery. May be additional sets, which may be subsequently required to be replaced, may not form part of plant and machinery, and may constitute other (MFA), but initial set of blades and segments can on no parameters be excluded from being included as cost of plant and machinery, and that precisely has been done by the State Level Committee, and has been affirmed by learned Single Judge, in which we do not find any error. The appeal thus, has no force, and is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/