COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. BINANI CEMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are against the common judgment passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer on 18. 12. 98 allowing the appeals filed by M/s. Binani Cement, a division of Binani Industries Ltd. , Binanigram, Pindwara, which relates to the extent of exemption from tax to which the respondent is entitled to avail under the Rajasthan New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1954. Since two separate applications have been made in respect of grant of eligibility certificate to avail benefit under the notifications issued with reference to State Act as well as the Central Act, two proceedings have continued in that regard. However, the basic facts and issue remain the same.

(2.) THE respondent (hereinafter called, `the company') established a new cement unit within Panchayat Samiti, Pindwara which commenced commercial production in 1997. It engaged itself in the manufacture of cement, the total Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) in the new industrial unit claimed by the company was Rs. 53252. 87 Lakhs (Rs. 532. 52 crores) but only Rs. 5553. 72 Lakhs (Rs. 55. 53 crores) were accepted in the first instance as FCI eligible for availing the benefit under the New Incentive Scheme 1989. On that basis, the State Level Screening Committee certified the company entitled to avail exemption of tax to the extent of 25% of the tax imposable only by treating it be to a large scale industry. Though it has not given any reasons for confining the benefit to 25% apparently it refers to Item 1-E of Annexure-C appended to the Rajasthan New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1989.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate General contents that benefit to the cement industry under the Scheme 1989 is confined to the extent envisaged under Item 1e of Annexure `c', the said entry being specific entry relating to the cement industry, no other entry which is general character can be looked into for the purpose of availing benefit in respect of a new cement unit. Therefore, notwithstanding that the Company's unit may be considered a new prestigious unit, Item No. 4 being general in character, cannot govern the case of cement industries. He relies on a decision of this Court in CTO Chittorgarh vs. M/s. Aditya Cement (1), in contending that the legislative history of the provision goes to show that the general benefit available to prestigious or new very prestigious unit are not extended to the cement industry in general from the very beginning and therefore the entries in Annexure `c' must be read in that background as not conferring additional benefit than what has been envisaged under Item No. 1e of the appendix Annexure `c'.