M/S. A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. .. ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.7972-7973 of 2005) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5816 /2006 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.6809 of 2005) M/s. Victory Papers and Boards India Ltd. .. Appellant Versus State of Kerala & Ors. .. Respondents S.B. Sinha, J.

We will, however, notice the fact of the matter from M/s. Victory Papers and Boards India Ltd.'s case.

The State, admittedly, at the district level constituted a 'Green Channel Clearance Committee' (GCC).

The appellant had applied for grant of electric power allocation to the extent of 2500 KVA. It obtained loan on 19.1.1995. As the application of the appellant had not allegedly been processed, GCC issued several reminders to the Board. On or about 17.11.1995, Appellant informed the Board that the project was at an advanced stage. It was recorded that despite recommendations by GCC, sanction for grant of electrical connection had not been issued, stating :

It, allegedly, imported machinery from abroad, which fact was intimated to the Board by a letter dated 24th June, 1996, stating :

[Emphasis supplied] The response of the Board thereto is to be found in the letter dated 11.2.1997, whereby sanction for power allocation was sought for by the Deputy Chief Engineer from the Chief Engineer of the Board. Having regard to the fact that there was no adequate transformer capacity at Kanjiokode Sub Station, the allocation could not be granted, as was informed to the appellant by the Board in terms of its letter dated 21.4.1997. Electrical energy was allocated for six months on trial-run basis on 24.12.1997 and a final sanction was granted on 21.12.1998. Appellant started commercial production on 10.3.1999. It evidently denied the benefit of the said incentive scheme dated 6.2.1992. A writ petition was filed by the appellant, which has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment of the High Court, inter alia, stating :

So far as case of M/s. A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. is concerned, we need not go into the factual aspect of the matter. Suffice it to notice that its writ petition was permitted to withdrawn by the High Court by an order dated 24th November, 2003. A review application filed by the said appellant was also dismissed by an order dated 25th May, 2004. We may, however, note that an application for grant of electrical connection was filed by it in November, 1995 and actual commercial production started in or about October, 1998.

In the present case, the first Notification exempting the customs duty on PVC itself recites "....Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in public interest to do so...". In the Notification issued later which gave rise to the present cause of action, the same recitation is present."

Indian Tobacco Association, (2005) 7 SCC 396, Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira Cement, JT 2006 (2) SC 369. and P.R. Prabhakar v. Commnr. Of Income Tax, Coimbatore, 2006 (7) SCALE 191]. If, thus, the Appellant was entitled to the same, it should not be denied the benefits thereof. It is directed accordingly."

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.