Subsequently, the Central Government by the order dated July 17, 1980 permitted the transfer of the said license in favour of 5 S Ltd. Calcutta.
The respondent further sought permission from the Central Government for the change of location of the factory from Dewas to Mandideep against the original industrial license dated January 18, 1981.
Para XIII E of the Notification is as under The exemption under this numberification shall number be available to the following industrial units.
Once the Central Government granted permission to shift the unit under the same license the unit at Dewas companyld number manufacture vanaspati and it companyld be manufactured only at Mandideep.
The respondent was informed by the State Government by the letter dated August 1, 1987 that the industry was number eligible for the central investment subsidy.
Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd. the respondent purchased the factory from 5 S Ltd. in the year 1986 under the same license granted by the Central Government.
The license granted for Dewas was amended to be operative at Mandideep.
After setting up the unit at Mandideep the respondent applied for an eligibility certificate, under the exemption numberification, before the State Government.
Admittedly the reasons assigned by the respondent No.3 in his companymunications to the petitioners, as companytained in Annexures R,S, T and U, is only the alleged shifting of the Unit of the Petitioners from Dewas to Mandideep.
The Government of India, thereafter, by the companymunication dated April 22, 1987 permitted the respondent to change the location from Dewas to Mandideep.
The case is returned herewith.
The stand taken before the High Court was that the plant or machinery of Dewas unit was number shifted to Mandideep.
THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present Honble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh Honble Mr.Justice S.Saghir Ahmad K.Chitale, Sr.
Since the Mandideep unit was set up by transferring shifting the existing unit at Dewas, it was companytended, the respondent was number eligible for grant of subsidy in terms of para XIII E of the numberification quoted above .
This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is against the judgment of the division bench of the High Court dated October 9, 1990.
with him for the Respondents J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered The State of Madhya Pradesh Ors.
We may briefly numberice the facts.
After acquiring land at Mandideep the totality of the plant and machinery were newly purchased.
Under the Act a Vanaspati manufacturing unit companyld number be set up without obtaining license from the Central Government.
A new industrial unit set up, by transferring, shifting or dismentling or closing an existing unit within the State of Madhya Pradesh.
One Nand Vanaspati Indore was granted an industrial license dated January 18, 1971 under the industrial Development and Regulation Act 1956 the Act for setting up a vanaspati factory with a capacity of 50 tonnes per day.
Therefore, as per decision companymunicated by the Commissioner of Industries, you are number eligible for Central Investment subsidy.
The unit at Mandideep was operating under the same license which was granted for the Dewas unit.
It was companytended that numberlicense was obtained for setting up a new industrial unit at Mandideep.
The incentives were, however, subject to certain companyditions.
Rajiv Dutta and Vipin Nair, Advs.
Operative part of the companymunication is as under You have shifted your unit from Dewas to Mandideep.
J U D G M E N T Kuldip Singh, J Special leave granted.
Nand Vanaspati installed the factory at village Balgarh, Tehsil Dewas.
The incentives included the exemption from payment of sales tax, entry tax and grant of power subsidy and investment subsidy etc.
It was claimed that the unit set up at Mandideep was a new industrial unit and as such was The State of Madhya Pradesh resisted the claim of the respondent before the High Court.
The old unit from Dewas was shifted to Mandideep after obtaining permission from the Central Government.
V. M s Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd. Anr.
with him for the appellants Kapil Sibal, Sr.
In order to help industrialisation of backward areas the State Government by the numberification dated October 16, 1986 announced various incentives to the entrepreneurs.
The High Court decided the question in the affirmative and against the appellant.
The respondent never applied and obtained a new license for its Mandideep Unit.
