SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Pat) 247

PATNA HIGH COURT
Birendra Prasad Sinha and R.N.Lal JJ.
Tata Engineering And Locomotive Company Limited
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2417 of 1985 ; 2419 of 1985 ; 2649 of 1985 ; 2650 of 1985 ; 2651 of 1985 ; 2652 of 1985 ;
Decided On : MAY 27, 1988

The term "metallurgical industry" has a technical and scientific meaning and that it refers to the process of extracting ores, refining them, and converting them into steel.

Headnote:

METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY - MEANING - CESS ACT, 1977 - SCHEDULE I - INTERPRETATION - ENGINEERING INDUSTRY - DISTINCTION - CESS LEVY - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, Jamshedpur, challenged the levy of cess under the Water (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Cess Act, 1977 (Cess Act) on the ground that it was not engaged in a metallurgical industry as defined in Schedule I of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner was not engaged in a metallurgical industry as defined in Schedule I of the Cess Act. The Court observed that the term "metallurgical industry" has a technical and scientific meaning and that it refers to the process of extracting ores, refining them, and converting them into steel. The Court further observed that the petitioner's dominant purpose was to manufacture automobiles, which is an engineering industry, and that the metallurgical processes employed by the petitioner were merely ancillary to its main business.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was engaged in a metallurgical industry as defined in Schedule I of the Cess Act? 2. Whether the cess levy under the Cess Act was applicable to the petitioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the term "metallurgical industry" has a technical and scientific meaning and that it refers to the process of extracting ores, refining them, and converting them into steel. 2. The Court further observed that the petitioner's dominant purpose was to manufacture automobiles, which is an engineering industry, and that the metallurgical processes employed by the petitioner were merely ancillary to its main business.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the demand notices issued to the petitioner for payment of cess under the Cess Act.

Judgment

Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.

1. All these Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment

2. What is the meaning of a "metallurgical industry" ? This is the principal question which has come up for consideration in this batch of the writ petitions. The Tata Engineering and locomotive Company Limited, Jamshedpur is the petitioner. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under a fresh certificate of Incorporation dated 24.9.1960, consequent to change of name of the Tata locomotive and Engineering Company Limited, under a resolution passed in terms of Sec.2 of the Companies Act, 1956 with the approval of the Central Government. It is claimed that the petitioner in accordance with its Memorandum of Association has been pursuing its object of carrying on the business of manufacturing, assembling, selling, altering, importing, exporting, distributing and dealing in locomotives, bioldars, engines, steamgas, electrical or otherwise, turbine, tankers, motor vehicles, trucks, lorries, commibuses, buses, bulldozers, steak rollers, excavators and the kind. The head office of the company is located at Bombay and the factory is located at Jamshedpur within the State of Bihar and at Poona in the State of Maharashtra.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner undertook the manufacture of open goods wagons in 1946, which was discontinued in 1948. Then they undertook manufacture of Tata Marshall Steam Road Rollers in collaboration with Messrs Marshall of the United Kingdom. This was also discontinued in 1956. In 1949 the petitioner had also undertaken manufacture of underframes for passenger carriages, which too was discontinued in the year 1956. Thereupon the petitioner-Company under a collaboration agreement entered into in 1954 with Dalwar Benz undertook the manufacture of commericial vehicles. The first vehicle rolled out of its Jamshedpur Workshop on the 15th of October, 1954. In 1960 the Company started manufacturing truck engines also at its Jamshedpur Workshop and in 1961 in collaboration with Messrs Fawling and Harnigohfigger (United States) excavators etc. Since 1969 the Tata Mercedes Benz Diesel vehicles are being rolled out of its workshops. From 1980 Turbo Engine 1516 L.P.T. with bus chasis was converted to truck ; and from in collaboration with Hitachi, Japan, the petitioner-Company has been manufacturing Hydraulic excavators. It is thus claimed that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of automobiles, hydraulic excavators, long crawlers, showels, dragline, claimshell and back hoc and is known and called as an Engineering Industry.

4. The petitioner received a notice issued under Sec. 5 of the Water (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter to be called as the Cess Act) to furnish returns. The liability to pay cess under the provision of the Cess Act was denied by the petitioner-Company vide letter dated the 20th of September, 1983 (Annexure-4). Thereupon the Member Secretary of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna) respondent No. 4) (hereinafter to be called as "the Board") called upon the petitioner-company to pay the amount of Rs. 79,559.90 paise towards the cess payable for the period from July, 1984 to September, 1984, vide Annexure-2. Similar demands were made for other period, which are the subject matter of the other connected writ petitions.

5. The petitioner-company filed several appeals against the orders of the Member Secretary of the Board (respondent No. 4) before the Appellate Committee of the said Board (respondent No. 5) under the provisions of Sec.13 of the Cess Act. The appeals were disposed of on the 20th of March, 1985 by a common order as contained in Annexure-1. It may be stated here that some of the appeals related to the assessment in respect of Work Establishment of the petitioner-company and other appeals related to consumption of water in the Township-Establishment of the petitioner-company. The present writ p





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top