BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS revision under Sec. 86 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short `the Act) is directed against the Judgment dated 9. 2. 1999 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (`hereinafter to be referred to as' the Tax Board'), whereby the Tax Board while allowing the appeal has set aside the order dated 19. 3. 1999 passed by the District Level Screening Committee.
(2.) THE brief facts which are not in dispute and are relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are : that the respondent assessee is the manufacturer of Stainless Steel Sheets. Its original installed capacity was 1300 M. T. per annum prior to 16. 2. 1995 when it has taken expansion activity. As against the installed capacity of 1600 M. T. per annum, the Unit has achieved the production of more than 85% of the installed capacity in the year preceding the relevant date. Its production between April 1994 to 15. 2. 1995 was 1292. 913 M. T. and during the year ensuing the date of expansion, the respondent assessee manufactured its own goods to the tune of 1447. 489 M. T. and also manufactured the goods by doing the job work. In all it gave production to the extent of 2193. 76 M. T. The respondent assessee's Unit applied for grant of Eligibility Certificate under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989 (for short `the Scheme of 1989') as an expansion Unit. The requisite conditions for considering the Unit eligible for grant of Eligibility Certificate as an expansion Unit are contained in clause 2 (f) of the Scheme of 1989, which reads as under: " 2 (f ). "expansion" means increase in the value of fixed capital investment by not less than 25% of the next fixed assets of the existing project and accompanied by an increase in the production to the extent of at least 25% of the original licensed/registered capacity. Explanation: The benefits of Sales Tax Incentive for Expansion shall be admissible to the eligible units only after they have achieved at least 85% of their licensed/registered capacity before expansion". A perusal of the aforesaid provision goes to show that in order to avail the benefit of incentive Scheme by the Expansion Unit, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled. (a) That there should be increase in the value of fixed capital investment by not less than 25% of the net fixed assets of the existing project; (b) That such increase in the value of fixed capital investment must be accompanied by an increase in the production to the extent of at least 25% of the original licensed/registered capacity; (c) The Unit must have achieved at least 85% of their licensed/registered capacity before expansion. In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent-assessee has increased in the value of the fixed capital investment by more than 25% of the existing net fixed assets of the project and it has also achieved production of more than 85% of its originally installed capacity which was 1600 M. T. per annum before expansion. About the third condition viz. , that after expansion, it should have achieved its production at least 25% in excess of its originally licensed/registered capacity, there is also no dispute that the total production of the Unit inclusive of its own production and the production through job-work exceeded 25% of the originally licensed/registered capacity within completion of one year of expansion. It is only thereafter that the Expansion Unit could aspire to get Eligibility Certificate for securing the benefit of Incentive Scheme as an Expansion Unit. However, the District Level Screening Committee (for short `the DLSC') was of the opinion that for the purposes of the aforesaid Scheme, the manufacture of goods by way of job work cannot be taken in to account and the Unit must have manufactured its own goods exceeding 25% of its originally installed capacity before it could avail the benefit of Incentive Scheme as an Expansion Unit. On the above interpretation of the Scheme of 1989, the DLSC rejected the application of the respondent assessee for grant of Eligibility Certificate. On appeal, the Tax Board held that so far as the question of achieving the production 25% in excess of its originally licensed/registered capacity is concerned, it makes no difference whether the production is done for the owners of the Unit or is done on job work but what is essential is that a Unit should utilise fully its originally licensed/registered capacity of manufacture of production and should have further achieved 25% excess to that capacity in production. The Tax Board also held that there is no requirement that the entire production in order to make the Unit eligible for grant of benefit under the Incentive Scheme must of its own account and not by way of any job work. In this view of the matter, the Tax Board allowed the appeal filed by the respondent assessee and directed the DLSC to issue necessary eligibility certificate to the respondent assessee vide its order dated 9. 2. 1999. Hence this revision by the Revenue.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Johari, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr. Dinesh Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, the learned counsel for the Revenue urges that the Scheme of 1989 was brought into force vide Notification No. F. 4 (35) FDGr. IV/87-38 dated 6. 7. 1989 and the said Notification dated 6. 7. 1989 reads as under: " In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 4 (2), RST Act, 1954, the State Govt. hereby notifies the "sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989" (hereinafter referred to as the "new Incentive Scheme") and exempts the industrial units from payment of tax on the sales of goods including bye-products and waste items manufactured by them within the State and in case of packing material used there with the benefit will be available only if it is linked with fixed capital investment, in the manner and to the extent and for the period as covered by this Notification. " He submits that keeping in view the expression "exempts the industrial units from payment of tax on the sales of the goods manufactured by them" used in the Notification dated 6. 7. 1989 it must be considered that for the purposes of computing acquired manufacturing capacity of an Industrial Unit seeking to avail the Incentive Scheme under the Incentive Scheme of 1989, the manufacture must of those goods which could be sold by it and not the manufacture of goods for others. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pestrige Engineering (India) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut and Ors. (1 ). ;