9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling Plant of the petitioner as an Industrial Undertaking under Section-2 of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act and collects electricity duty of 20% of electricity consumed by the petitioner every month. The respondent issued notice on 14.5.1999 to the petitioner to revise this classification of the Industrial Undertaking for the purpose of electricity duty. Thereafter, as per the instruction of State Government, differential duty was demanded from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.33,80,176.56 ps., failing which the power supply will be disconnected. 3. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.3466 of 1999 before this Court challenging the communication dated 9.3.1999 demanding recovery of differential amount of electricity duty from the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 6.5.1999 directing the petitioner to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the said order and further directing to deposit 50% of the duty amount claimed from the petitioner. The petitioner filed an Appeal No.2 of 1999 before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed n 3.1.2001. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner and only with a view to avoid disconnection the said payment was made under protest and, thereafter the present petition was filed. 8. This Court has issued rule on 17.8.2001 and directed to be heard alongwith Special Civil Application No.373 of 2001 and Special Civil Application No.5400 of 2001. 9. Ms.Minoo A. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in both these petitions, has submitted, over and above adopting the arguments canvassed by Mr.Nanavati in Special Civil Application No.5400 of 2001, that the petitioners have obtained the registration of Industrial Undertaking. They have also obtained necessary licenses from the Controller of Explosives, Baroda under the provisions of the Explosives Act for storing compressed gas in pressure vessels. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners' undertakings are Industrial Undertakings as defined under Section-2(bb) of the Act. The manufacturing process is also being done at the plant of the petitioner. Bulk LPG is stored in plant of the petitioners and manufacturing process of refilling of LPG in cylinder is carried out at the LPG Bottling Plant. The Government of India in exercise of power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court rendered on 25.11.2009 in the case of Vadilal Gases Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No.9691 of 2000) wherein the Court after considering the nature of process undertaken by the petitioner took the view that the petitioner unit is a manufacturing unit within the definition of the Act and hence the petitioner is required to pay only 10% duty charges and not 60% charges as demanded by the respondent. The Court further held that the finding of the authority that there is no manufacturing process is without any basis. The Court has allowed the petition and quashed the order passed by the respondent authorities and respondents were directed to credit the excess payment made by the petitioner in the future bills. She has, therefore, submitted that since these two cases are identical with the said case, the petitions deserve to be allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount with interest. 13. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of Electricity Company. Mr.Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Electricity Company has submitted that electricity consumption of the petitioners falls under Item No.7 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties and having considered their rival submissions in light of the statutory provisions and decided case law on the subject and having judiciously examined the decisions/orders under challenge, the Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are not justified in collecting/adjusting and/or enforcing the recovery of electricity duty at the rate of 60% by reclassifying the electrical energy consumed by the petitioners for their activities. The Court has at length discussed this issue in Special Civil Application No.5400 of 2001 decided today and for the reasons stated and findings recorded therein, the petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. 17. Apart from the said reasoning, one more point which is in favour of the petitioners is that as per the definition of "industrial undertaking" given in Section 2(bb) of the Act, the petitioners' activities fall within the ambit of this definition. The Government of India in exercise of power conferred by Sections 5 and 7 of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 has made Rules known as Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. The Rule-2, Sub-clause-xxv defines the expression 'manufacturing of gas' which means filling of a cylinder wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
