Case: M/S. Tata Iron &amp; Steel Co. Ltd Vs. State Of Jharkhand

not the case of the respondent-State that in fact the product manufactured by the appellant in the new unit is now CRM. It could not have been the case either because in our opinion a careful reading of the letter of the Director of Technical Development, 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. 19. 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 State has filed a counter affidavit. Even in the counter affidavit the factual aspect of the product being CRM is not questioned nor do we find any argument addressed on behalf of the respondent-State before the High Court that the product manufactured by the appellant in its new unit is not CRM. It is for the first time the High Court having come to the conclusion that the finding of the Commissioner based on the judgment of this Court in Telengana Steel (supra) is erroneous, on its own proceeded to examine the material available on facts to establish whether the product manufactured by the appellant in its new unit is CRM or HRM. Even the High Court on such material that was available before it did not come to a definite conclusion that the finding of the Joint Commissioner was erroneous but it proceeded to weigh the quantity of evidence and thought it more prudent to remand the matter to take more evidence in this regard. We think in a writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227, the High Court ought to have done such an exercise. 20. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel contended that the finding of the Joint Commissioner in regard to the nature of product only refers to certain literature produced by the appellant and certain feasibility report, project data and the correspondence between the Government of Bihar and the appellant. This by itself according to learned counsel, would not in fact indicate that the actual product that is manufactured by the appellant is CRM. He submitted that the appellant ought to have either by summoning the officers to the site or by other materials established that the new unit produced only CRM and not HRM. 21. We are unable to accept this argument either. First of all, as noticed above, it is not the case of the State that the product manufactured by the appellant in its new unit is not CRM. It is not the case of the State that the existing unit either by its machinery or by its process is capable of making HRM and not CRM or is capable of manufacturing both. Of course, if such an issue were to be raised the burden would have been on the appellant to establish the same. When such an issue is not raised it is not necessary for the appellant to establish that fact by any such intrinsic evidence. The material produced before the Joint Commissioner was in our opinion sufficient to decide whether the product manufactured 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. 22. 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 assurance that the appellant invested a huge sum of money which according to the appellant is to the tune of Rs.2,000 crore but the State says it may be to the tune of Rs.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 installation of the machineries, the concerned Government/authorities were informed and at no point of time it was suspected that the new unit was going to manufacture HRM. The process of manufacturing HRM and CRM as could be seen from the experts opinion are totally different and the material on record also shows that the plant design for a new unit is for the purpose of manufacturing CRM. These factors coupled with the fact that at no stage of the proceedings which culminated in the judgment of the High Court, the respondent-State had questioned this fact except for the technical ground taken by the Joint Commissioner which is found to be erroneous, we find ends of justice would not be served by remanding the matter for further inquiry. 23. We are convinced that the issue before the High Court was not whether in fact the new unit of the appellant manufactures HRM or CRM. That being the case, the High Court ought not to have raised the issue suo motu and remanded the matter to the Commissioner.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court was in error in remanding the matter to the Commissioner to decide the question of fact which in our opinion was already conclusively decided by the Joint Commissioner and not disagreed on facts by the Commissioner. In this process, if we see from the narration of facts recorded hereinabove that right from the beginning, it is the case of the appellant that they wanted to establish a new unit for the manufacture of CRM. The correspondence also shows at every stage even the State and the concerned Department accepted the proposal for the said purpose. No case has made out, leave alone an attempt on behalf of the State has been made that the appellant misled the Department or by any sort of camouflage tried to put up a plant which only manufactures HRM. As a matter of fact, it was not the case of thee that in fact the product manufactured by the appellant in the new unit is now CRM. It could not have been the case either because in our opinion a careful reading of the letter of the Director of Technical Development, 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 thee repudiated this letter or challenged the correctness of the same19. 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 State has filed a counter affidavit. Even in the counter affidavit the factual aspect of the product being CRM is not questioned nor do we find any argument addressed on behalf of thee before the High Court that the product manufactured by the appellant in its new unit is not CRM. It is for the first time the High Court having come to the conclusion that the finding of the Commissioner based on the judgment of this Court in Telengana Steel (supra) is erroneous, on its own proceeded to examine the material available on facts to establish whether the product manufactured by the appellant in its new unit is CRM or HRM. Even the High Court on such material that was available before it did not come to a definite conclusion that the finding of the Joint Commissioner was erroneous but it proceeded to weigh the quantity of evidence and thought it more prudent to remand the matter to take more evidence in this regard. We think in a writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227, the High Court ought to have done such an exercise21. We are unable to accept this argument either. First of all, as noticed above, it is not the case of the State that the product manufactured by the appellant in its new unit is not CRM. It is not the case of the State that the existing unit either by its machinery or by its process is capable of making HRM and not CRM or is capable of manufacturing both. Of course, if such an issue were to be raised the burden would have been on the appellant to establish the same. When such an issue is not raised it is not necessary for the appellant to establish that fact by any such intrinsic evidence. The material produced before the Joint Commissioner was in our opinion sufficient to decide whether the product manufactured 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 inquiry22. 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 assurance that the appellant invested a huge sum of money which according to the appellant is to the tune of Rs.2,000 crore but the State says it may be to the tune of Rs.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 installation of the machineries, the concerned Government/authorities were informed and at no point of time it was suspected that the new unit was going to manufacture HRM. The process of manufacturing HRM and CRM as could be seen from the experts opinion are totally different and the material on record also shows that the plant design for a new unit is for the purpose of manufacturing CRM. These factors coupled with the fact that at no stage of the proceedings which culminated in the judgment of the High Court, thee had questioned this fact except for the technical ground taken by the Joint Commissioner which is found to be erroneous, we find ends of justice would not be served by remanding the matter for further inquiry23. We are convinced that the issue before the High Court was not whether in fact the new unit of the appellant manufactures HRM or CRM. That being the case, the High Court ought not to have raised the issue suo motu and remanded the matter to the Commissioner.