MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD. versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 10-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] l 1 S.C.R. 780 
MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2464 of 2016) 
NOVEMBER 10,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 - Explanation 
(b) of Part B of Table of Rates of Duty to s. 3(1) -Interpretation of 
term "processing" under the definition of "mine" - Grievance of 
appellant pertains to definition of "mine" the effect of which is to 
make processing a part of mining and prescription of higher rate of 
duty for "mines" (i.e. a composite activity of mining and 
processing) - Propriety of- Held: The word "processing" herein 
would mean those processes with help of hands or machineries 
connected and linked to mining activity- It would not include process 
by which a new or differe.nt article other than one which has been 
mined, is produced-The intent and purpose is certainly not to compel 
and force a manufacturing unit set up at an acceptable distance 
fi·om mine to pay electricity tariff at a higher rate - Pertinently, a 
mamifacturing unit whether adjacent to the mine or not, would pay 
a lower tariff - Thus, tariff has to be levied as meant for 
mamifacturing unit- Electricity Tariff- Interpretation of statutes -
Maxim - Noscitur a sociis - Mines and Minerals. 
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 - Explanation 
(b) of Part B of Table of Rates of Duty to s. 3(1) - Interpretation of 
term "mineral" under the definition of "mine" - Plea of appellant 
that manganese ore is a mineral but ferro manganese is not a mineral 
because the said mineral is converted into "alloy" and ceases to be 
mineral - However, the State contended that definition is an inclusive 
one - Held: Appellant was using manganese ore as one of the raw 
materials and consuming the same while manufacturing ferro 
manganese alloy - The stage of crushing, treating, processing, etc. 
of manganese ore was in Integrated Manganese Beneficiation Plant 
(!MB Plant) stage, same cannot be applied in Ferro Manganese 
780 
MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
Plant Stage - Thus, Ferro Manganese Plant, being a unit involved 
in manufacturing o,f ferro manganese alloy as opposed to a unit 
involved in crushing, treating, processing, etc. of manganese ore, 
cannot be treated within the extended definition of 'mine' - Mines 
and Minerals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The words 'crushing', 'treating' and 'transporting' 
are words of narrower significance and the word 'processing' used 
between these words should not be given a very wide meaning, 
for the legislative intent is narrower. The word 'processing' would 
take its meaning in the cognate sense. In other words, the general 
word 'processing' will be restricted to the sense conveyed by the 
words 'crushing', 'treating' and 'transporting'. The intent being 
that electricity tariff payable in respect of mining activities would 
include the mine itself, all machinery situated or located in the 
mine or in a premises adjacent to the mine wherein crushing, 
processing, treatment or transportation of the minerals as mined 
is undertaken. The word 'processing' herein would mean those 
processes with the help of hands or machineries connected and 
linked to mining activity. It would not include process by which a 
new or different article other than the one which has been mined, 
is produced. It relates and signifies the composite activity of 
mining and processing. The intent is not to include processes 
which would lead to creation of a different commodity as known 
in the commercial world for otherwise even manufacturing activity 
would get covered, whereas manufacturing unit is liable to pay 
electricity tariff at a lower rate. The intent and purpose is certainly 
not to compel and force a manufacturing unit being set up at an 
acceptable distance from the mine, for the manufacturing unit 
adjacent to the mine would have to pay electricity tariff at a higher 
rate. Pertinently, a manufacturing unit set up by another entity, 
whether adjacent to the mine or not, would pay a lower tariff. 
Such absurdity and irrationality has to be avoided. In the present 
context, therefore, 'processing' would mean activities in order 
to make the mineral mined marketable, saleable and 
transportable, without substantially changing the identity of the 
781 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
782 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 11 S.C.R. 
mineral, as mined. When there is a substantia

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.