2004 Supreme(SC) 946

2004(6) Supreme 361
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jharkhand High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. -Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2188 of 2002
With
SLP (C) No. 9942/2003, 15419 of 2004, CA No. 1912/2004
All decided on 25-8-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dushyant A. Dave, Gourab K. Banerjee, Sr. Advocates, M.K. Dua, Punit Dutt Tyagi and Mukesh Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Altaf Ahmad and Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advocates, Ashok Mathur, Arup Banerjee, Gopal Prasad and Manish Mohan, Advocates.

Headnote:Central Sales Tax Act-Section 14-Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1956-Bihar Finance Act, 1981-Sections 7, 3-Bihar Industrial Policy-Sales tax incentives including 8 years sales tax exemption on sale and purchase of materials for new units-Necessary exemption notifications were also issued-Appellant having a manufacturing unit for production of Hot Rolled Product (HRP), Rounds, Structurals etc., intimated its plan for installing Cold Rolling Mill in which a sum of Rs. 2000 crores was to be invested-Appellant company was held entitled to all the reliefs under the Bihar Industrial Policy-Relying on assurance given by the Government, appellant invested money, commercial production of which commenced from 1-8-2000-Joint Commissioner passed an order exempting new unit of appellant from purchase tax as well as sales tax on purchases and sales made in regard to Cold Rolling Mill-He approved issuance of certificate-Whether Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was justified in declining the concession-(No).

       Held : The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the product manufactured by the appellant in its new unit is a Cold Rolled Mill product or as it is termed in some parts of the judgment and orders as CRM or it is the same product as is being manufactured by the appellant in its old unit which is known as Hot Rolled Mill product or HRM. (Para 14)

       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 been 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 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 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. (Para 17)

       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. (Para 20)

       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 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. (Para 21)

       We restore the proposal made by the Joint Commissioner for grant of exemption certificate to the appellant as also the exemption certificates granted consequently. (Para 23)