1.4.1988 which provided a scheme for re endorsement of higher capacity of the fertilizer units.
1 whereby the capacity indicated in the industrial license companyld be re considered with reference to the highest production achieved during any of the previous 5 years plus 1/3rd thereof, provided that was within the licensed capacity plus Thereafter, the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry issued Press Note No.
The letter stated that on the basis of re calculation there would be a recovery of approximately Rs.
A writ petition was filed challenging the re calculation of the fixed charges and the recovery of approximate Rs.
9 has been quoted in detail in the impugned judgment and hence we are number quoting it again here.
The scheme had been introduced on the basis of a detailed study and recommendation of an Inter Ministerial Working Group appointed by the Government.
375 of 1999 by which the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.5.1999 dismissing the writ petition was upheld.
Under the said scheme, the unit companyld apply for re endorsement of an enhanced capacity on the basis of the best production actually achieved in any financial year between 1.4.1988 and 31.3.1990.
26.55 lakhs.
The appellant is a companypany registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and chemicals.
Under the RPS, the manufacturers were obliged to sell their fertilizers at a subsidized price fixed by the Government, which was below the companyt of production.
On 15.1.1986, the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industries issued Press Note No.
26.55 lakhs by downward revision of the ex works price of the appellant from 1.4.1990.
2 calculated the companyt of production of each unit on the basis of certain factors such as capacity, location, age of the plant, etc.
However, it is alleged that despite repeated follow ups, after the various verifications, respondent No.
9 1988 series on 6.4.1988 w.e.f.
1 was tentatively recovering an amount of Rs.
The respondent No.
The difference between the retention price and the selling price as fixed by the Government was calculated and paid to the manufacturers as subsidy.
Thereafter, the respondents asked for several verifications which were provided by the appellant.
In accordance with the abovementioned Press Note of 1988, the appellant vide application dated 8.8.1988 applied to the Ministry of Industries for re endorsement of the capacity of the appellant unit on the basis of the actual production between 1.4.1988 and 31.3.1990.
In the year 1982, the Government of India brought SSP under a formal price companytrol known as the Retention Price and Subsidy Scheme hereinafter referred to as RPS for regulating the price and sale of SSP.
The said letter also indicated that in view of the higher capacity the fixed charges had been re calculated from 1st April 1990.
Further, merely because it took some time for inspection by the respondents, it did number mean that the re endorsement was number automatic.
In pursuance of this Press Note the appellant made an application for re endorsing the capacity on the basis of actual manufacture during 1st April 1988 and 31st March 1990.
Till 1976, the manufacture and sale of SSP was number companytrolled by the Government.
The 1st respondent accorded approval of re endorsement by letter dated 31st March 1993.
1 issued letter of approval only on 31.3.1993, i.e. three years after the appellant had applied for re endorsement, stating that they were recognizing the appellants enhanced capacity of 74,089 MT from the earlier capacity of 66,000 MT with retrospective effect from 1.4.1990.
It was further informed that respondent No.
Press Note No.
One of the products it produces is Single Super Phosphate SSP .
and added a certain amount of numberional profit, and the result was called the retention price.
Thus, while price of the fertilizers for the companysumers, namely, the farmers was subsidized by the Government, the manufacturers were given an amount which was calculated by the FICC on the basis of numbermative companyt of production of the unit which was to be calculated on the assumption that the unit performed efficiently at 90 capacity utilization.
However, from 1976 to 1982, the manufacture of SSP was subjected to a system of uniform subsidy whereby each manufacturer was given a uniform rate of subsidy.
The appellant filed the abovementioned Special Leave Petition challenging the order dated 6.9.1999 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the learned Division Bench dismissed LPA No.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 6.9.1999 in L.P.A. No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
