SAURASHTRA FERROUS (P.) LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in light of the Notification No. dated 31.07.2001, granting exemption to excisable goods cleared from its unit in Kachchh, the petitioners decided to set -up a plant and machinery/Unit of the factory for two different products, i.e. (1) cast iron articles and (2) Pig Iron. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that with respect to both the aforesaid products, so far as manufacturing of aforesaid two products is concerned, they have invested a huge amount and installed plant and machinery valued at Rs. 24.30 crores. It appears and it is an admitted position that the plant and machinery so installed and commissioned for manufacturing of cast iron articles by making investment of Rs. 92 lacs and started manufacturing of cast iron articles, i.e. first commercial production for cast iron was done prior to 31.12.2005. However, the entire plant and machineries for production/manufacturing of Pig Iron was not commissioned and installed (Fully) prior to 31.12.2005, and therefore, naturally the petitioners could not have commenced the production/manufacturing of Pig Iron. It is not in dispute that the plant and machineries for both the products, i.e. cast iron articles and the Pig Iron are different. That the petitioners claimed exemption on commercial production of cast iron articles and Pig Iron, as contained in the Notification No. , dated 31.07.2001, which has been denied, and therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE present petition is opposed by Shri Darshan Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, and Mr. Jaymin Gandhi, learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 submitting that, as such, the controversy involved/issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.12.2013 in the case of Plastene India Ltd. v. Union of India, passed in Special Civil Application No. 13627/2013. It is, further, submitted that even the controversy raised in the present Special Civil Application would also be covered by a decision of another Division Bench of this Court dated 15.04.2011 in the case of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd v. State of Gujarat, passed in Special Civil Application 11278/10.