9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated hereinabove. 5.. Therefore, the question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to the assistance under the said scheme in respect of the goods manufactured by it. 6.. The basic facts in this case are that the petitioner-company carries on business, inter alia, of manufacturing rice bran oil raw grade-I by the solvent extraction process. According to the petitionercompany, the said oil is known as "edible rice bran oil". The petitioner has further stated that the refined grade of rice bran oil is fit for direct human consumption. But, the rice bran oil of Raw Grade I manufactured by the petitioner-company is also of edible variety and is rendered fit for human consumption after some processing. But, the rice bran oil raw grade-II is not edible and is meant for only industrial purposes. The case of the petitioner-company is that the rice bran oil raw grade-I is used by the Vanaspati Industries. The petitioner has further stated that the said oil, viz., rice bran oil raw grade-I obtained by the method of solvent extraction is permitted to be used in the manufacture of vanaspati and in support of this contention, the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an application claiming the said assistance under the said scheme on the quarter ending on June 30, 1994. But, since no action was taken by the respondent-authorities in respect of the application, representations were made to the Government by the Eastern India Oil Industry and the Trade Association. But, no response was given. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded justice by a letter dated June 4, 1998, but, no reply was received. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 1734 of 1998 and on that writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court passed an order dated December 15, 1998 and, thereafter, by the impugned order dated January 25, 1999, the claim of the petitioner was turned down, inter alia, on the ground that the item which is manufactured by the petitioner is not coming within Sl. No. 4 of the Schedule which has been quoted above. The authority found that the petitioner is manufacturing rice bran oil raw gradeI from which the refined rice bran oil or vanaspati could be prepared. But according to the respondents since the item manufactured by the petitioner was not fit for human consumption, therefore, the rice bran oil raw grade-I which is manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistance. Apart from that the limited life of the Scheme for one year makes it clear that it is not for encouraging the setting up of new units. 14.. This Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is right. It is no doubt true that the said scheme is for an existing unit which is going through a financial crisis. It is also true that the said scheme is not meant for the interest of the consuming public. But, what is of essence to the said scheme is that in order to claim benefit or entitlement under the said scheme, the unit must be a manufacturing unit and it must manufacture one of goods specified in Schedule "A". Here the relevant goods in the Schedule "A" is "edible rice bran oil" and the question is whether the petitioner is manufacturing "edible rice bran oil". In this connection, the petitioner is relying on its averments in para 7 of the writ petition for contending that at the relevant point of time when the said scheme was introduced, there was no unit in the State of West Bengal manufacturing refined grade rice bran oil and the only unit for the manufacture of refined grade rice bran oil was Kusum Products Ltd. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also in Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Following the meaning given to the word "edible" in the two dictionaries the authority came to the conclusion that the word "edible" means something which is meant for human consumption and as the petitioner's product, viz., rice bran oil grade-I is not fit for human consumption, the same is not included in the Schedule to the said scheme. The reasoning given in the impugned order is that since the item manufactured by the petitioner is not fit for human consumption, unless it goes through certain process, the same cannot be called edible rice bran oil. The aforesaid conclusion arrived at in the impugned order is also sought to be developed on the basis of some decision which the court now proposes to consider. 16.. The first of such decision referred to in the impugned order is in the case of Chhatar Extractions Pvt. Limited v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab and Chandigarh reported in [1986] 61 STC 374 (P&H). 17.. In the said case, the word "edible" came up for consideration and the learned Judge interpreted the word "edible" to mean something fit to be eaten as food. The said decision is based on another decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionary meaning should not be mechanically adopted. The meaning of such words should be construed in their own context in the sense as ordinary people understood in dealing with the such goods. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on the decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Wollens (P.) Ltd. reported in [1989] 72 STC 201 (SC); (1988) 37 ELT 474. In that case, the learned Judges of the honourable Supreme Court held that when the statutory definition is not provided in the Act in respect of an item in the Customs Act or the Central Excise Act, the trade understanding and meaning thereby in the opinion of those who deal with the goods in question is the safest guide. 19.. The learned counsel further submitted that the expression "edible" cannot be construed in isolation from the rest of the words "rice bran oil". The learned counsel submits that in the instant case, the object of the scheme is to encourage industrial activities by providing concession. Therefore, it must receive a liberal interpretation. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar v. Straw Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt extracted rice bran oil was edible grade rice bran oil. (e) The petitioner also relied on Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) (Fourth Amendment) Order, 1977. The said Order was issued in exercise of power under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said order was amended in the year 1990 and under the said amended order, the expression "edible oil" has been defined. The said definition is as follows: " 'Edible oil' means any oil used, directly or after processing, for human consumption and includes hydrogenated vegetable oil." (f) The petitioner also relied on the opinion of the Director of Technical Research Institute of Jawahar Lal Nehru Technological University. In his opinion, the Director stated as follows: "The rice bran oil grade-I has been defined as edible rice bran oil because the oil is used for edible purposes after refining whereas the rice bran oil grade-II which is not fit for refining process due to obvious techno-economical reasons is termed and classified as an oil meant for industrial uses. Since the same cannot be used for edible purposes, but can be used only for industrial purposes." (g) Reliance was also placed on the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the impugned order that it has not considered the meaning of edible rice bran oil as prevalent in trade and commerce and the materials which are disclosed in the writ petition to ascertain the true meaning of edible rice bran oil were also not considered. This is clear from the text of the impugned order. Apart from that, the impugned order is suffering from an infirmity in the decision making process. It is clear from the impugned order that the authority has relied on a report dated January 5, 1999. The said report was furnished by the Commercial Tax Directorate under Memo No. 4233 CT/AC dated January 5, 1999. The said report is dated January 5, 1999 and the hearing were given to the petitioner on January 13, 1999. It appears from a perusal of the report which has been disclosed before this Court at the time of final hearing that the impugned order is substantially based on the same. In other words, the petitioner's case for availing of the benefits under the said scheme was rejected on the basis of the said report which was not disclosed to the petitioner. This is clearly a gross failure of natural justice. This has certainly vitiated the decision making process, since the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of edible rice bran oil. In that context, the question came up for consideration whether the rice bran oil used in the manufacture of vegetable oil is an edible oil. That is not the point in issue. 27.. Similarly, in the case of Chandausi Oil Mills [1961] 12 STC 310 (All.), the court considered what is meant by edible oil and in the case of Girdharmal AIR 1963 SC 1587 the honourable Supreme Court considered what is meant by edible oil seeds and whether the same can be included within the definition of food stuff. Those cases are not relevant for deciding the controversy in this case. 28.. In that view of the matter, this Court quashes the impugned order dated January 25, 1999. But the matter is sent back to the authority once again for the purpose of consideration of the petitioner's case. Since the matter is an old one it is expected that the same should be considered by the appropriate authority within three months from the date of communication of this order in the following manner: (i) Notice should be given to the parties immediately. After getting the notice, the petitioner-company can, if it wants to, file an additional representation in which it can deal with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
