1. Notification eligibility — Factory owned by government-controlled company — Determination of whether the factory is maintained by the government. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 388
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal : S.N.Phukan : S.P.Bharucha
Collector Of Central Excise, Indore
Versus
Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Corporation
Case No. : 1866 of 1990
Date of Decision : 2/16/00
Important Points
A company is a separate legal entity; thus, assets owned by it are not owned by the government, even if the government holds all shares. However, whether such assets are "maintained" by the government is a factual issue requiring specific evidence.
Subject
Tax Law - Central Excise
Act Referred
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT: S.5(a)
Headnote
(A) Central Excise Notification - Factory belonging to or maintained by the Central Government or a State Government - Company registered under the Companies Act - Legal entity - Ownership of shares by government does not equate to ownership of assets by the government - A company is a separate legal entity and it is that entity which owns the factory. (Para 2)
(B) Maintenance of Factory - Distinction between ownership and maintenance - Absence of evidence on record regarding who maintains the factory necessitates a fresh inquiry. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A factory is owned by a company registered under the Companies Act. The shares of the company are held by the Governor of a State and the Director of Industries. The dispute pertains to whether the factory falls under a notification applicable to entities belonging to or maintained by the Central or State Government.
Findings of Court:
The company, being a separate legal entity, owns the factory. However, there is no evidence on record to determine who maintains the factory.
Issues: Whether a factory owned by a company in which the government holds the shares is considered to be "belonging to or maintained by" the government for the purpose of a notification.
Ratio Decidendi: A company is a distinct legal entity; therefore, assets owned by the company are not owned by the government, regardless of shareholding. However, the "maintenance" of the factory is a separate factual issue that must be decided based on evidence, which was missing in the present case.
Result: Order set aside and remanded to the authorities below to decide the matter afresh only insofar as the maintenance of the factory is concerned.
(B) Maintenance of Factory - Distinction between ownership and maintenance - Absence of evidence on record regarding who maintains the factory necessitates a fresh inquiry. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A factory is owned by a company registered under the Companies Act. The shares of the company are held by the Governor of a State and the Director of Industries. The dispute pertains to whether the factory falls under a notification applicable to entities belonging to or maintained by the Central or State Government.
Findings of Court:
The company, being a separate legal entity, owns the factory. However, there is no evidence on record to determine who maintains the factory.
Issues: Whether a factory owned by a company in which the government holds the shares is considered to be "belonging to or maintained by" the government for the purpose of a notification.
Ratio Decidendi: A company is a distinct legal entity; therefore, assets owned by the company are not owned by the government, regardless of shareholding. However, the "maintenance" of the factory is a separate factual issue that must be decided based on evidence, which was missing in the present case.
Result: Order set aside and remanded to the authorities below to decide the matter afresh only insofar as the maintenance of the factory is concerned.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. A company is a distinct legal entity; government shareholding does not automatically establish that the government maintains the company's assets. (Para 2 )
3. Separate legal entity status of a company means government shareholding does not automatically satisfy the requirement of a factory being maintained by the government. (Para 2 )
4. Orders set aside — Matter remanded for fresh determination on whether the factory is maintained by the government. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Does government ownership of a company's shares imply that the company's assets are maintained by the government?
No. A company is a separate legal entity that owns its assets. Government ownership of shares does not automatically establish that the government maintains the company's factory. (Para 2 )
6. Who is considered the owner of a factory held by a company whose shares are owned by government officials?
The company itself, as a registered legal entity, is the owner of the factory, regardless of the identity of the shareholders. (Para 2 )
(1) THE relevant portion of the notification in question, for the purposes of this appeal, reads thus:
"... belonging to or maintained by the Central Government or a State Government...."
(2) THE factory in question belongs to the respondent. The respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. Of its shares, all but one are owned by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and that one is owned by the Director of Industries. Being a company, the respondent is a legal entity and it is that legal entity which owns the factory. But the question is: who maintains the factory? There is no evidence upon the record in this behalf. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order of the Tribunal under challenge and of the authorities below and to remand the matter to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gwalior, to hear and decide the matter afresh only insofar as the maintenance of the factory is concerned. The parties shall be at liberty to lead further evidence in this behalf.
(3) ORDER on the appeal accordingly.
(4) NO order as to costs.
