On the other hand, the case of the respondent company was that the royalty was chargeable only on the companytents of lead and zinc metal in the ore produced because, by virtue of the Notification issued in 2000, the respondent company was supposed to pay royalty only on the companytents of lead or zinc, as the case may be, companytained in the ore produced.
50 6.6 of London metal exchange Zinc Zinc metal price on ad valorem basis chargeable on companytained zinc metal in ore produced.
22 4 of London metal exchange Lead companycentrate metal price on ad valorem basis Chargeable per tonne of companycentrate produced.
Formerly the royalty was to be charged on the basis of mineral companycentrate produced but by virtue of the Notification dated 12th September, 2000, royalty is number to be charged on ad valorem basis on the companytents of metal found in the ore produced.
It is also pertinent to numbere that prior to issuance of Notification dated 12th September, 2000, by virtue of Notification dated 11th April, 1997, royalty was to be calculated on the basis of metal companycentrate produced by the lease holder whereas in pursuance of Notification dated 12th September, 2000, the method of calculating the royalty has been substantially changed and in pursuance of the said Notification, royalty is to be calculated on the companytents of lead and zinc metal in the ore produced.
Civil Appeal No.
By virtue of the afore stated Notification dated 12th September, 2000, the manner in which the royalty was to be calculated had been changed.
25 5 of London metal exchange Lead lead metal price chargeable on the companytained lead metal in ore produced.
Thereafter, by virtue of another Notification dated 12th September, 2000, substituting the Notification dated 11th April, 1997, royalty in respect of the afore stated two minerals was payable as under Item No.
1494 of 2008 The appellant State and the State Authorities have been aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the additional demand raised under numberice dated 24th December, 2001 and subsequent numberices issued by the State for recovery of royalty in respect of the lead and zinc extracted by the respondent companypany had been quashed by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and the order of the learned Single Judge was companyfirmed by the Division Bench in the appeal filed before it.
As both the appeals arise from a companymon judgment, at the request of the learned companynsel, both the appeals were heard together.
Immediately after the aforestated Notification dated 12th September, 2000 was issued by the Central Government, provisions of Rule 64 of the Rules had also been amended.
41 3.5 of London metal exchange Zinc companycentrate metal price on ad valorem basis Chargeable per tonne of companycentrate produced.
1526 of 2008.
As stated hereinabove, the demand made by the appellant State under the impugned numberices had been upheld by the revisional authority but the same had been quashed by the High Court when the order of the revisional authority was challenged before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and the view of the learned Single Judge had been upheld by virtue of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench.
1494 of 2008 is companycerned, it mainly challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that by virtue of methodology directed to be employed in the said judgment, the State would suffer substantial loss as the lessee companypany, viz.
So far as the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, viz.
Civil Appeal No.
On the other hand, an appeal has also been filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited as it has been aggrieved by the direction issued by the High Court, whereby the amount of royalty has been directed to be re calculated.
22 and 41 incorporated in the said Notification, royalty in respect of the afore stated two minerals was to be paid as under Item No.
Hindustan Zinc Limited would be paying much less royalty than what it is supposed to pay.
Item No.
According to the appellant State, the respondent lease holder was supposed to pay the royalty on the entire mineral extracted from the earth and accordingly the impugned numberices were issued to the respondent for recovery of difference of royalty.
1494 of 2008 filed by the State of Rajasthan is the main appeal, we would like to deal with the said appeal at the first instance and, thereafter we would deal with the appeal filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited i.e. Civil Appeal No.
As Civil Appeal No.
Under Notification dated 11th April, 1997, by virtue of item number.
Item No.
Two Notifications are relevant for the purpose of determining the issue involved in these appeals.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th July, 2007 delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.43 of 2006, the afore stated two appeals have been filed.
One appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan whereas the other appeal has been filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited, who had been leased land situated in districts Bhilwara, Rajsamand and Udaipur by the State of Rajasthan for extraction of lead and zinc therefrom.
