The court confirmed that electrical installations essential for plant operations qualify for subsidy under the CCISS, rejecting previous misconceptions about their eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent no. 2, 3 & 5, Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for subsidy under the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007. The respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 34,48,453/- from the total subsidy which the petitioner alleged to be entitled to.

3. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of TMT Bars and Rods. With the introduction of Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 under the NEIIPP 2007 through a notification dated 27.07.2007, the Government of India announced that all eligible industrial units located anywhere in the North Eastern Region shall be given a capital investment subsidy at the rate of 30% of their investment in Plant and Machinery or additional investment in Plant and Machinery. Such subsidy will be applicable to units in the private sector, joint sector, cooperative sector as well as the units set up by the State Governments concerned in the North Eastern Region. The duration of the scheme was from the 1^st April, 2007 and it would remain in force up to and inclusive of 31.03.2017. The petitioner company, having made substantial investment in the plant and machinery of its production units, applied for grant of the subsidy in accordance with the scheme. By a communication issued by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, Tinsukia on 24.12.2006, the Director of Industries & Commerce, Assam was informed that the admissible amount of investment in plant and machinery for the particular unit of the petitioner came to Rs. 4,96,33,335/- only and the 30% CCISS recommended to the unit stood at Rs. 1,48,90,000/- only. In a Meeting held by the SLC, an amount of Rs. 3,81,38,493/- was taken by the SLC to be the amount which would be considered for granting the subsidy under the scheme and accordingly, the petitioner company was held to be entitled to Rs. 1,14,41,547/- as subsidy.

4. When even the aforesaid subsidy amount was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this Court. The stand taken by the respondents in the writ petitions and the writ appeals filed subsequently were that the petitioner and the other similar companies would not be entitled to the subsidy since allowing such a subsidy would be allowing them double benefits under the NEIIPP, 2007 and CCIS scheme simultaneously. This Court had decided that the petitioner herein, along with other business establishments who were similarly circumstanced, would be entitled for the grant of subsidy under the CCISS, 2007 also. The details of the previous litigation, which do not have bearing in the present lis, are not discussed in detail herein for the sake of brevity, save and except observe that the petitioner was held to be entitled to grant the benefits under the CCISS, 2007.

5. The petitioner claims, and the respondents do not dispute, that they have been paid the amount of subsidy based on the decision of the respondents that the total expenditure eligible for consideration for grant of subsidy was Rs. 3,81,38,493/-.

6. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that although the recommendation in favour of the petitioner was for a subsidy of Rs. 1,48,90,000/-, on the basis of a total investment of Rs. 4,96,33,335