V.M.SAHAI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of batteries (dry cells), miniature lamps and torches. It has two industrial establishments. In one establishment torches and miniature lamps and in the other batteries (dry cells) are manufactured. The petitioner received a notice dated December 27, 1979 from the Cess Officer to submit a return regarding quantity of water consumed for every calendar month with effect from April 1, 1978 and pay cess to the Board. On January 5, 1980 the petitioner submitted his reply that his industry is not covered under Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (in brief the Act). The Cess Officer on January 15, 1980 wrote to the petitioner to furnish the details of raw materials used and products manufactured in the factory of the petitioner. Before the petitioner could furnish the details he received two assessment orders passed by the Cess Officer on February 4, 1980 in Cess No. 57/11 and 33/17 for the period April, 1978 to December, 1979. Thereafter, on February 8, 1980 the petitioner furnished details and returned both the assessment orders with the request to the Cess Officer that he should first ascertain whether the petitioner's industry is covered by the Act or not.
(2.) The Cess Officer on February 15, 1980 held that the petitioner's industry was covered under entries 1, 2 and 7 of Schedule I of the Act as it processes ferrous or non-ferrous metals and chemicals to manufacture its products. He also passed two revised assessment orders No. 96/10 and 52/17 for April, 1978 to September, 1978 and October, 1978 to December, 1978. The petitioner challenged the order dated February 15, 1980 under Section 13 of the Act before the Appellate Committee which dismissed the appeal on November 13, 1981 and affirmed the order passed by the Cess Officer. Both the orders dated February 15, 1980 and November 13, 1981 have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
(3.) Sri Vijai Ratan Agarwal learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Ratan for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner is not engaged in any of the industries as mentioned in Schedule I of the Act and is not liable to pay any water cess. He further urged that in Schedule I of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 the petitioner's industry, is listed under the heading 'electrical' equipment'. In the 'Handbook of Indigenous Manufacturers' published by Directorate General of Technical Development the industry of the petitioner has been placed under the heading 'Light Electrical Industries'. He urged that the petitioner's industry is not ferrous or non-ferrous metals or chemicals industry and no metallurgical operation is carried on in the industry of the petitioner nor any metal is manufactured. The petitioner purchases metals from the market in whatever form it is needed for the manufacturing of torches. He urged that no chemical is manufactured. Therefore, the orders passed by the Cess Officer and appellate committee are illegal and liable to be quashed.;