S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) IN both the cases, as the question relating to exemption from minimum guarantee charges and its refund, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner. M/s. Pey Pey Icecreams is a low tension consumer of the Board, having connected load upto 25 H.P. The Board earlier raised bill in respect to minimum guarantee charges which the petitioner had already paid. According to petitioner, it is entitled for exemption and refund of amount already paid in terms with Industrial Policy. 1993 in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in K.D. Industries v. B.S.E.B., reported in 2001 (2) J C R 318 (SC) : 2000 (1) JLJR 678 (SC). The petitioner, M/s. Amba Ceramic Works has made similar prayer and claims exemption in terms with Industrial Policy, 1995 in the light of aforesaid decision in M/s. K.D. Industries (supra). It is stated that this petitioner is also covered by Clause 9.6 of the Industrial Policy. 1995, L.T. consumer having connected load of 60 H.P.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Board raised preliminary objection relating to refund, the petitioner having earlier deposited the amount. However, such objection cannot be accepted in view of recent decision in M/s. K.D. Industries, the ratio of which to be applied in all similarly situated cases.;