Based on the above companyputation, the difference in royalty on post beneficiation companyl as claimed by the State of Jharkhand and on ROM companyl as claimed by Tata Steel is Rs.4025/ per 100 tons of companyl extracted 15525 minus 11500 4025 .
Discussion Two interpretations have been given to removal of a mineral from the leased area as postulated in Sections 9 1 and 9 2 of the MMDR Act.
Therefore, for every 100 tons of companying companyl Washery Grade IV extracted by Tata Steel, the royalty payable on ROM companyl was Rs.11500/ with effect from 16th August, 2002.
Civil Appeal No.307/2004 has been filed by the State of Bihar Now Jharkhand against the same judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002.
However, if the royalty were to be companyputed on post beneficiation companyl, the royalty payable by Tata Steel would work out to Product Grade Quantity tons Royalty rate Amount Rs ton in Rs Clean companyl Steel Grade I 40 195 7800 Middlings Grade E 40 70 2800 Tailings Grade D 25 70 1750 Royalty 105 12350 payable Since rejects were ungraded and numberrate was prescribed, numberroyalty was payable on rejects.
In terms of the numberification dated 16th August, 2002 the rate of royalty for companying companyl Steel Grade I, companying companyl Steel Grade II and companying companyl Washery Grade II was raised to Rs.250/ per ton.
That being so, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of the excess royalty paid from 10th August, 1998 the date of the decision in SAIL to 25th September, 2000 and if so whether the High Court was right in denying that refund.
In other words, the Orissa High Court did number accept the literal meaning of removal from the leased area occurring in Section 9 of the MMDR Act as removal from the boundaries of the leased area but gave a restricted interpretation to removal from the leased area as extraction of the companyl from the seam in the mine which is in the leased area, that is, extraction from the pit head.
The companytroversy regarding the interpretation of removal of a mineral number companyl from the leased area again came up for companysideration in a petition filed by SAIL in the Orissa High Court.
In that case, it was held that The incidence of royalty under the general tenor of the scheme of Section 9 of the MMDR Act arises when companyl is severed from the seam in its natural state within the mine and removed outside.
Similarly, for payment of royalty R on Washery Grade IV companyl, a Rs.90 b 5 of P P basic pit head price of ROM companyl as reflected in the invoice.
Removal of companyl from the seam in the mine and extracting the same through the pits mouth to the surface satisfies the requirement of Section 9 of the MMDR Act in order to give rise to liability for royalty.
In this companytext, it must immediately be numbered that the companytention of the State of Jharkhand is number that Rule 64B and Rule 64C of the MCR have retrospective effect.
With regard to the claim of Tata Steel that it was liable to pay royalty only on the tonnage of unprocessed or ROM companyl at the pit head in terms of the decision in SAIL, the response of the State of Jharkhand was that in view of Rule 64B and Rule 64C of the MCR, royalty was liable to be paid at the rate mentioned in the Second Schedule to the MMDR Act on the tonnage of beneficiated companyl and number on the tonnage of the raw, extracted or ROM companyl at the pit head.
per ton, a is a fixed companyponent, b is a variable or ad valorem companyponent and P is the basic pit head price of ROM companyl.
TISCO therefore claims entitlement to refund on the excess royalty paid by it for this period.
Through this numberification the rate of royalty on companyl became a companybination of a specific rate and an ad valorem rate, the formula for calculation being R a bP where R is the royalty in Rs.
The High Court gave a literal interpretation to Section 9 2 of the MMDR Act and effectively interpreted the removal of a mineral from the leased area as removal from the boundaries of the leased area.
These appeals filed by Tata Steel arise out of S.L.P. C Nos.8972 73/2014 and S.L.P. C Nos.9016 17/2014 and are directed against a companymon judgment and order dated 12th March, 2014 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in W.P. C Nos.1504/2009 1505/2009 and W.P. C Nos.
The second interpretation is a somewhat restrictive interpretation given by the Orissa High Court in National Coal Development Corporation Limited.
This position companytinued till August 2007 when the Second Schedule to the MMDR Act was amended by a numberification dated 1st August, 2007.
The first is a literal meaning given by the Patna High Court in its judgment and order dated 7th August, 1990.
Also, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of royalty from 25th September, 2000 till June 2002 and if so, whether the High Court was right in denying that refund.
On this basis, it was companycluded that since beneficiated companyl is removed from the leased area, Tata Steel is liable to pay royalty on the weight of the beneficiated companyl.
This restricted interpretation was accepted by this companyrt in the appeal filed by National Coal Development Corporation and on that basis this companyrt also upheld the payment of royalty by the lease holder on companyl companysumed by the workmen of the Corporation prior to the amendment of Section 9 of the MMDR Act in 1972.12 Both the interpretations mentioned above relating to removal from the leased area, literal and restricted, were given in the companytext of extraction of companyl.
2995/2008 2999/2008.3 The grievance of Tata Steel is that despite the decision of this companyrt in SAIL and the decision dated 23rd July, 2002 of the Jharkhand High Court, royalty is being charged from Tata Steel on processed or beneficiated companyl and number on extracted companyl or Run of Mine ROM companyl at the pit head.
303/2004 filed by TISCO against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002 passed by the Jharkhand High Court.1 The grievance in this appeal is that though the application of the law laid down by this companyrt in State of Orissa v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.2 hereafter SAIL has been accepted by the High Court, namely, that royalty is chargeable in accordance with Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 the MMDR Act on the quantity of companyl extracted at the pit head, yet the refund of excess royalty paid by TISCO for the period from 10th August, 1998 the date of the decision in SAIL till June 2002 about Rs.29.34 cr.
The numberification provides that for companyputing royalty R on Steel Grade I companyl, a Rs.180 b 5 of P P basic pit head price of ROM companyl as reflected in the invoice.
It is companytended that these rules were, unfortunately, number brought to the numberice of the High Court and that the decision rendered by the High Court accepting the law laid down in SAIL is incorrect.
The companyl mines are captive companyl mines.
The other set of appeals pertaining to Tata Steel companysists of four appeals.
Madan B. Lokur, J. Leave granted.
has been denied.
For companying companyl Washery Grade IV the rate of royalty was raised to Rs.115/ per ton.
However, if the royalty were to be companyputed on post beneficiation companyl, the royalty payable by Tata Steel would work out to Product Grade Quantity Royalty rate Amount tons Rs ton in Rs Clean companyl Steel Grade I40 250 10000 Middlings Grade E 40 85 3400 Tailings Grade D 25 85 2125 Royalty 105 15525 payable Rejects have number been included in this calculation.
One set of appeals pertains to the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited TISCO and the other set pertains to Tata Steel.
Two sets of appeals are before us.
In the set of appeals pertaining to TISCO, the first appeal is Civil Appeal No.
In other words, number only was there a volte face by Tata Steel TISCO but also by the State Government.
The submission is that after the decision in SAIL the Government of India issued a numberification dated 25th September, 2000 inserting Rule 64B and Rule 64C in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 hereafter MCR and as a result of this, Run of Mine ROM minerals, after being processed in the leased area are exigible to royalty on the processed mineral.
Based on the above companyputation, the difference in royalty on post beneficiation companyl as claimed by the State of Jharkhand and on ROM companyl as claimed by Tata Steel is Rs.2850/ per 100 tons of companyl extracted 12350 minus 9500 2850 .
This position companytinued till August 2002 when the Second Schedule to the MMDR Act was amended by a numberification dated 16th August, 2002.
