HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. U.P.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner-company has challenged the order dtd. 24/8/2000 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Cess Appellate Committee in Appeal No.29 of 1997 and the cess bill dated 12/23- 06/1997. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to refund amount as deposited by the petitioner's establishment for the period of 26/1/1992 to 31/1/2000 and restraining the respondents from issuing any further cess assessment order against the petitioner's establishment and realize the same under garb of the fact that the petitioner's establishment is covered under the item no.1 of Schedule-I or under item no.16 of Schedule-I of the Cess Act 1977.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner-industry only uses the ferrous metals which is being imported or manufactured in India without any chemical change in the same therefore it is not covered under the ferrous metallurgical industry. However, the same has been included under item no.16 of Schedule-I by means of the notification dtd. 16/4/1993 but since no date of its enforcement was appointed by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette in accordance with the Sec. -1 of the Sub-sec. (4) of the Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (here-in-after referred as the Act of 1977), therefore the same has also wrongly and illegally been charged from the petitioner and the respondents are liable to refund the same to the petitioner. However, it has been admitted that the petitioner is paying the cess regularly after 1/2/1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Indian Telephone Industry Limited, Naini, Allahabad Vs. Cess Appellate Committee, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Lucknow and Another; (2005) 1 UPLBEC 17.