LexHINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 434 A HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. v. _.,.__ -..f STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.6725 of 2008) B NOVEMBER 19, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM . . ~ . ~ SHARMA, JJ.] . -- " ... c Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949: . s.3, Explanation (b) - 'Mine' - Levy of electricity duty as regards manufacturing of copper concentrate - Matter remitted to High Court to decide the question as to whether D copper concentrate is a mineral and whether the Explanation applies even though manufacturing process is involved to bring it into existence - Sincf;J the basic question has not been decided by the High Court, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh f- consideration of the question as formulated by Supreme E Court - In the meantime, appellant is directed to pay the current dues, but there shall be no recovery of arrears relating to interest, if any. The appellant, a Government company, was engaged F in extraction of copper ore by open cast mining process. Appellant's Mine as well as the processing plant were . y- subjected to uniform electricity duty under the entry relating to 'mines other than captive mines of a Cement Industry' in the table contained in s.3 of the M.P. G Electricity Duty Act, 1949. According to the appellant its activities consisted of two distinct parts: (1), mining which included drilling, blasting and collecting of ore and these }. activities were carried on in the mining area registered H 434 HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. v. STATE OF MADHYA 435 PRADESH AND ORS. under the Mines Act, and (2) the processing, which was A carried on at the Primary Crnsher, Secondary Crusher and Concentrator Plant, situated away from the mine at distances varying -2.5 km to 10 km and separately registered as 'factory' under the Factories Act. The stand of the appellant that as regards the activities (2), the B processing part, it was entitled to lesser rate of duty as ~ -i- was applicable to 'non-domestic and commercial establishments'. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the provisions of s.3 of the M.P. Electricity Duty Act, namely the entry in the Table c (Part B) relating to 'mines other than captive mines of cement industry' and Explanation (b) defining 'mine' and extending the definition ~f 'mine' to its 'factory' activities for the purpose of levying electricity duty thereon. The appellant also filed other writ petitions involving similar D issues. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. On appeal the matter was remitted to the <~ High Court for disposal of the writ petitions afresh. The High Court again dism;ssed the writ petitions. E In the instant appeal by the Government Company, it was contended for the appellant that the questions were not correctly formulated by the High Court and actual essence of the dispute could not be _covered. The court formulated the question as follows: F ~- "Whether copper concentrate is a mineral and whether Explanation to Part B of the Act applies even though manufacturing process is involved to bring it into G existence". -~ Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Since the ·basic question has not been decided by the High Court, the impugnedjudgment is set H 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R A aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration of the question as formulated by this Court. 'l'n the me~ntim'e, the appellant' is directed to pay the clltrent ·dues, but there shall be no recovery of arrears reiating·to 'interest, if any. '[Para S] [446-BlC] .· · · ; B . , '' , . ,·. :.;- (State of fvT.P. v. Bir/a Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. 1995 (4) SCC 603 and Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2004 (12) SCC 408, referred to. C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6725 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.2.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Petition Nos. 2821 of 1988 & 3827 of 1993 & Writ Petition No. 3103 o of 1994.' · . . ' ,, · G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., · Nandini Sen and Deba Prasad Mukherjee for t~e Appellant. + . E SJ<. Dubey, Vikas Upadhyay, Yogesh Tiwari, Nandita Dubey and 8.S. Banthia for the Respondents. · The Judgment of the Court was delivPred by F DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgmentof a Division .
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.