text:
Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another v/s State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U04010CT1995PLC008985
Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27105HR1979PLC009913
Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148
Company & Directors' Information:- CHHATTISGARH STEEL AND POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109CT2003PLC016284
Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PLC092393
Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849
Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033
Company & Directors' Information:- C P S STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104TZ2003PTC010552
Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985
Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726
Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248
Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998
Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047
Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270
Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021
Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852
Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691
Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344
Company & Directors' Information:- Y D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109WB1997PTC086155
Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568
Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811
Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206
Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447
Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880
Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340
Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498
Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675
Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634
Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409
Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835
Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. POWER AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14290DL2012PTC240718
Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021362
Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432
Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670
Company & Directors' Information:- E & G STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28113PN2009PTC134643
Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206
Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976
Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588
Company & Directors' Information:- B R JINDAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1973PTC016358
Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915
Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808
Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259
Company & Directors' Information:- A M Q STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310UP2012PTC053823
Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960
Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266
Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811
Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426
Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566
Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983
Company & Directors' Information:- R B R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103PB2013PTC037791
Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742
Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625
Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541
Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467
Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309
Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL AND JINDAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31200UR1975PTC004130
Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1947PTC015981
Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1968PLC004852
Writ Petition (T) No. 140 of 2014
Decided On, 21 January 2020
At, High Court of Chhattisgarh
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU
For the Petitioners: Naveen Kumar, Ashish Shrivastava, Manish Kharbanda, Ms. Priya Singh & Aman Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondents: Siddharth Dubey, Deputy Government Advocate.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J.,
1. The constitutional validity of Section 13(1) of the Chhattisgarh Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the 1981 Act') is challenged in this writ petition. There is also a challenge against the demand notices dated 19.06.2014 and 11.07.201 whereby a total sum of Rs. 49,47,27,587/- is demanded towards the arrears of Energy Development Cess (for short, 'the EDC') and interest payable for the period from October, 2007 to January, 2014.
2. We heard Shri Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Company supported by Shri Ashish Shrivastava, and Shri Siddharth Dubey, the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State/Respondents.
3. The sequence of events is as follows: The Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 obtained the assent of the President on 16.12.1981 and it was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 12.01.1982; by virtue of which the said enactment was given life as Act No. 1 of 1982 in the erstwhile undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, from which the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out in the month of November, 2000. After formation of the State as above, the Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 and the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act, 1949') came to be adopted by this State and necessary notification has been issued bringing the above Acts into force, insofar as the State is concerned.
4. The Petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of steel at its plant in the Raigarh District. Petitioner-Company obtained 'Distribution licence' from the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission as per Annexure P/4 dated 29.11.2005 for distribution of electricity in the Jindal Industrial Park Limited to 70 industrial consumers with a maximum demand not exceeding 299 MW in the village Tumidih and Punjipathra of Gharghoda Tahsil in Raigarh District. Pursuant to the said licence, it is stated that the Petitioner-Company has been supplying/selling electrical energy to the above industrial units in its capacity as a 'Distribution licencee' (paragraph 8.1 to 8.4 of the writ petition).
5. The Chhattisgarh Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 virtually consists of five different parts. Part I deals with the "Energy Development Cess", Part II deals with "Urban Development Cess", Part III deals with "Cess on Transfer of Vacant Land and Land Used for the Purpose of Agriculture", and Part V deals is in respect of the head "Miscellaneous", which contains Section 13, dealing with the power to make rules and Section 14 as to the power to remove difficulties. As per the original scheme of the Act, under Part I, the liability to satisfy the Energy Development Cess was cast upon every 'Distributor' of electrical energy, subject to the exceptions specified in Section 4, which was to be satisfied at the rate of 10 paise per unit (as per CG Amendment Act 19 of 2010). Initially, it was 1 paise per unit, which came to be enhanced to 5 paise per unit, as per the CG Act No. 28 of 2004 and subsequently, it came to be enhanced to 10 paise per unit, as per the CG Act No. 19 of 2010. As per the CG Act 28 of 2004, simultaneous to enhancement of the cess from 1 paise to 5 paise, mentioned in Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, a new provision was also inserted as Section 3(1-a), whereby liability was cast upon every 'Producer' of electrical energy as well, to satisfy the cess at the rate of 10 paise per unit on the electrical energy sold or supplied to a consumer or consumed by himself or his employees by his captive power unit or diesel or other generator set of more than 100 KW capacity during any month, subject to the exceptions carved out as given in the proviso. Similar exception was already there in respect of Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, whereby the liability was cast upon the 'Distributor' of the electrical energy as mentioned in the proviso thereunder.
6. Though there was no challenge from the part of the distributors of electrical energy, who are required to satisfy such cess as borne by the charging section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, the insertion of a new provision by way of Section 3(1-a) bringing the 'producers' of electrical energy as well within the 'tax net' made various captive power producers to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 3(1-a) of the 1981 Act before this Court. The writ petition filed by the Petitioner (WP No. 2384 of 2006) came to be finalised by Division Bench of this Court as per the judgment dated 15.12.2006, whereby Section 2(2) of the CG Act No. 28 of 2004 inserting Section 3(1-a) in the 1981 Act, was declared as unconstitutional. The Respondents were restrained from levying and collecting EDC from the Petitioners under Section 3(1-a) of the 1981 Act and the bills raised in this regard were quashed. The verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court declared the provisions as invalid, as per judgment dated 15.12.2006, whereby Section 2(2) of the CG Act No. 28 of 2004 inserting Section 3(1-a) in the 1981 Act was declared unconstitutional. The Respondents were restrained from levying and collecting EDC from the Petitioners under Section 3(1-a) of the 1981 Act and the bills raised in this regard were quashed. The verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court declaring the provisions as invalid was sought to be challenged by the State by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. An interim order was passed by the Apex Court on 02.11.2007 granting liberty to the State to raise the bills demanding EDC, however, restraining any coercive steps for recovery of the said amount. It is stated that the matter is still pending before the Apex Court.
7. While so, observing that the statutory requirement in paying the cess by the Petitioner, in the capacity as a 'Distributor' of electrical energy in terms of Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, based on the 'Distributor licence' given by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission in the year 2005 was not being satisfied, Annexure P/2 proceedings were issued by the competent authority on 19.06.2014 raising a demand to satisfy a sum of Rs. 30,14,49,071/- towards the EDC under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum amounting to Rs.19,32,78,516/- for the period from October, 2007 to January, 2014 (to be effected by 30.06.2014). As part of the said proceedings, particulars of the energy used, the cess payable, the delay involved and the interest payable were separately given in the form of a table showing the total amount payable, both towards the principal portion and the interest portion.
8. On receipt of Annexure P/2, the Petitioners submitted a letter dated 30.06.2014 requesting for a period of two weeks for making a proper assessment of the levy made and for taking further steps. Annexure P/3 notice was issued on 11.07.2014 by the 2 nd Respondent referring to the letter dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P/5). Since the payment was not effected, the demand was reiterated as per Annexure P/3 dated 11.07.2014 referring to Annexure P/1 issued already. In response to this, the Petitioners contend that a request was made on 14.07.2014 (Annexure P/6) to provide for a further period of two weeks to evaluate the facts and figures as to the levy made by the 2nd Respondent and for taking further steps. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition on 28.07.2014, challenging the vires of Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act and seeking to quash Annexure P/1 and P/3 orders/demand notices. On 14.08.2014, it was submitted before this Court that, the validity of the Act, 1981 was pending consideration before the Apex Court and hence, the Petitioner had no objection in depositing the cess determined under the Act, under protest, however, pressing the objection towards the interest charged thereupon. In the said circumstance, an interim order was passed by this Court granting stay in respect of the cess amount provided the Petitioners deposited the entire amount before the 2nd Respondent within one month and continue to deposit the future cess as and when they fell due. The Petitioners were also required to furnish Bank Guarantee for interest portion to the 2 nd Respondent within the same period. Pursuant to the said direction, it is stated that deposit of the entire cess amount has been satisfied and the Bank Guarantee to the requisite extent towards the interest payable is also stated as furnished, which is stated a kept/renewed as valid throughout.
9. A return has been filed on behalf of the Respondents rebutting the pleadings and opposing the prayers. The contentions raised by the Petitioners that Annexure P/1 order came to be issued all of a sudden demanding the arrears and interest for nearly 7 or 8 years, has been sought to be rebutted by pointing out that the proceedings issued were only in respect of the statutory duty to satisfy the amount prescribed by Act and the Rules and further that the Petitioner-Company was very much aware of the position who had alerted the Petitioner's consumers as well, as to their liability to satisfy the cess. A copy of the specimen agreement executed between the Petitioner-Company and its consumers containing the aforesaid clause/stipulation has been produced as Annexure R/1.
10. The Petitioners have filed a compliance report with supporting affidavit dated 14.12.2014 as to the satisfaction of the deposit of cess and furnishing of the bank guarantee ordered by this Court on 14.08.2014, also producing copies of the relevant documents. Thereafter, the writ petition was sought to be amended (as per IA No. 3 of 2015) by incorporating some other grounds as grounds 'N' to 'P', raising a plea of limitation; and as to the arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the purported power to raise the demand of levy . On allowing the said IA, additional reply dated 24.07.2015 has been filed by the Respondents.
11. The subsequent developments have been brought on record by the Petitioners by filing IA No. 4 of 2019, also producing copies of the relevant documents. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 14.08.2014 and the deposit made by the Petitioners, Document No. D/1 letter dated 26.08.2014 was issued to the Petitioners' consumers; particulars of whom have been given in Document No. D/2 demanding the 'cess' already deposited by the Petitioners. The consumers sought to challenge the same by approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, where the relief was declined vide order dated 27.06.2015 (Document D/3), holding that the consumers were liable to pay the Electricity Duty Cess (EDC). The consumers then moved a representation before the Electricity Ombudsman constituted under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Ombudsman, vide order dated 07.10.2015 (Document No. D/4) partly allowed the appeal of the consumers and held that the Petitioner-Company was not entitled to recover any amount towards 'EDC' for the period beyond two years prior to its demand letter dated 26.08.2014. This has been sought to be challenged by the Petitioners before the learned Single Bench of this Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 2308 of 2015, wherein an interim order has been granted on 22.12.2015 and the matter is still pending.
12. Altogether, 16 grounds have been raised by the Petitioners, 13 at the time of filing of the writ petition and the remaining 3 by way of amendment. Among those grounds, (A) to (G) are in respect of validity of Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act - stated as in conflict with the constitutional mandate and the remaining grounds are in respect of the correctness of the proceedings finalised by the 2nd Respondent in issuing Annexure P/1 order, the subsequent demands, the quantification of the amount, denial of opportunity of hearing and the excessive/maximum rate of 'interest' (24%) stated as penal in character. The additional grounds (N) to (P) brought in as per the amendment are in respect to the alleged bar of limitation and the unreasonable delay of 8 years in issuing Annexure P/1 and the demands, claiming the cess and interest from October 2007 to January 2014. Reference to the above grounds is made only to mention that no ground has been raised by the Petitioners with reference to 'Section 3(1-a)' of the 1981 Act which is in respect of the 'Cess' payable in the capacity as a 'Producer' of electricity; which presumably may be for the reason that validity of the said provision is pending consideration before the Apex Court, where the Petitioner-Company is also stated as a party. In other words, the entire pleadings and prayers are raised with reference to the liability of the Petitioners to satisfy the EDC and interest only in the capacity as a 'Distributor' envisaged under 'Section 3(1)' of the Act, based on Annexure P/4 Distribution Licence issued by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The submissions made by the learned counsel by placing reliance on various judgments have to be analysed and understood in the above background.
13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner addressed the Court as to the constitutionality of the impugned provision, mainly contending that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; inasmuch as it is discriminatory qua Distributors, as the 'Cess' is imposed only on the supply/sale of electricity by the Distributor. This is with reference to the submission that sale by the independent power producer/captive power producer is exempted from the levy of Cess as per the order of the Apex Court, passed on 02.11.2007. The order passed by the Apex Court on 02.11.2007 in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3853 of 2007 filed by the State, against the common judgment dated 15.12.2006 whereby Section 3(1-a) of the 1981 Act was set aside, declaring it unconstitutional, is only to the following effect:
"In SLP (C) No. 3853 of 2007:
Leave granted.
Hearing expedited.
Liberty to move Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for a fixed date of hearing.
Pending the hearing and final disposal of the civil appeal, the Department may raise the bills so that the claim does not become time barred. However, no coercive steps shall be taken by the State to recover the dues till further orders. At the same time, the assesse will not press for refund on the basis of the impugned judgment during the pendency of the case.
In SLP (C) Nos. 19370 & 19371 of 2007:
To be tagged with Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 3853/2007.
In the meantime, pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the Department may raise the Bills but they shall not take coercive steps to recover the dues till further orders.
In SLP (C) No. 11870 of 2007:
To be tagged with Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 3853 of 2007"
14. As mentioned already, though the statue originally intended to collect EDC only from the 'Distributors' of electricity as given under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, as per the CG Act No. 28 of 2014, 28 of 2004, Section 3(1-a) was introduced in similar terms, demanding Cess from the 'Producers' of electricity as well. The rate is also common, as on date, by virtue of the CG Act No. 10 of 2010. This being the position, there is no unreasonable classification and both the 'Producers' and the 'Distributors' are required to satisfy the EDC to the requisite extent, though the matter is still pending consideration before the Apex Court in respect of the validity of Section 3(1-a) of the 1981 Act. As it stands so, the reliance sought to be placed by the Apex Court in Ram Prasad Narain Sahi v. The State of Bihar {AIR 1953 SC 215, paragraphs 15 and 18}, Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala and Another {AIR 1961 SC 552, paragraphs 8 to 10}, S.K.Dutta, Income Tax Officer v. Lawrence Singh Ingty, {AIR 1968 SC 658, paragraphs 8, 10 and 15}, State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty Naha & Others {AIR 1969 SC 378, paragraph 5}, Aashirvad Films v. Union of India {(2007) 6 SCC 624 , paragraphs 12 to 15, 18, 25 and 27} and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nalla Raja Reddy {(1967) 3 SCR 28, paragraphs 21 and 25} asserting the necessity to have a rational classification and the existence of discriminatory provisions, are not attracted to the case in hand.
15. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to various provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules thereunder, to demonstrate that as per the Act of 2003 and the Rules 2005, other entities like the Independent Power Producers (IPP) and Captive Power Producers (CPP) are entitled to effect sale and supply of electricity to their respective consumers under non-discriminatory mechanism. As pointed out already, the entire case is moulded with reference to the nature of business being performed by the Petitioners in the capacity as a 'Distributor' of electricity, coming within the purview of 'Section 3(1)' of the 1981 Act and not with reference to the liability as a 'Producer' of electricity, separately coming within the purview of 'Section 3(1-a)' of the 1981 Act (which issue is pending before the Supreme Court). There is no pleading in the writ petition that the Petitioner-Company is a 'Producer' of electricity in any capacity and the rights of the Petitioners in this regard are adversely affected because of any unreasonable classification with reference to IPP and CPP, as the case may be. Since the above arguments advanced do not have any basis as contained in the pleadings, it is not liable to be acted upon.
16. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the enactment is unreasonable and arbitrary, inasmuch as there is no mechanism for issuing any prior notice, hearing, assessment, appeal etc. with regard to the fixation of liability. It is also pointed out that there is no quasi-judicial forum before which the person facing the demand of such kind can approach. The absence of any machinery or mechanism as above will make the taxation unconstitutional. Support is sought to be drawn by the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Kunnkathat Thathunni Moopil Nair (supra) {paragraph 9} and Nalla Raja Reddy (supra) {paragraph 22 and 23} wherein the Apex Court held that, if a taxing statute does not provide for redressal i.e. notice, opportunity of hearing, taxing authority, procedure for assessment, redressal mechanism, then, such statute is unconstitutional.
17. Coming to the Act, 1981, it is a self contained statute. Section 3(1) clearly stipulates the extent of liability for payment of EDC at the of 10 paise per unit and the total units of electrical energy sold or supplied to the consumers or consumed by him or his employees during any month, subject to the exceptions mentioned in the proviso. Section 4 of the above Act clearly stipulates that the provisions of Section 4 to 9 (both inclusive) of the Act, 1949 and the Rules made thereunder shall mutatis mutandis apply to cess under the Act, 1981 as they shall apply to levy of duty on sale or consumption of electrical energy under that Act and for that purpose, reference to 'duty' or 'electricity duty' in the said Act or the Rules made thereunder, as the case may be, shall be construed as reference to 'cess'. Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 (for short 'the Rules, 1949') reads as follows:
"3. Time and manner of payment.- Every distributor of electrical energy and every producer shall pay the electricity duty in respect of each month before the expiry of the following month into a government treasury to the credit or Government under the head "XII-Other Taxes and Duties- Receipts from Electricity Duties-Other Receipts-Receipts from Electricity Duty, 1949" and send the treasury receipt to the Electric Inspector within fifteen days from the date of such credit."
18. From the above, it is clear that every 'Distributor' of electrical energy shall pay the electricity duty in respect of each month before expiry of the following month into the Government treasury under the head as mentioned therein and send 'treasury receipt' to the Electrical Inspector within 15 days from the date of such credit. Rule 7(i) of the Rules, 1949 mandates that, every 'Distributor' of electrical energy shall submit to the Electrical Inspector a return for each month in Form 'G' alongwith the treasury receipt sent under Rule 3. If the duty is not paid within the period specified under Rule 3, the liability to satisfy interest is specified under Rule 5(1) and the rate of interest is given under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. Settlement of disputes is taken care of by Rule 13, which is to the following effect:
"13. Settlement of disputes. - If any question arises between the distributor of electrical energy or the producer and an Electric Inspector as to the quantity of energy which is liable to electricity duty, the Provincial Government may on application of such distributor or producer or of the Electric Inspector refer the question to such authority as the Provincial Government may appoint and the decision of such authority shall be final."
19. If there is a failure on the part of the 'Distributor' in submitting the treasury receipt under Rule 3 and return mentioned in Rule 7(i) of the Rules, 1949, the course of action to be pursued enabling the Electrical Inspector to determine the amount of electricity duty by way of best of his judgment method and the subsequent issuance of a notice of demand requiring to satisfy the amount due pointing out that the amount so assessed shall be deemed to be the duty payable under Section 3 of the Act, 1949, are clearly mentioned in Rule 15(1) of the Rules, 1949. The liability to satisfy interest under such circumstance, in addition to the duty, is clearly given in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15. Rule 16 of the Rules, 1949 speaks about the penalty to be mulcted upon a person who commits breach of any of the Rules. From this, it is clear that the statute provides a complete mechanism as to the quantum of liability to be satisfied, the burden to submit the return, the period within which the payment has to be effected, liability to satisfy interest on delay, the power of the Electrical Inspector to fix the quantum when there is a failure on the part of the distributor, the rate of interest payable in respect of delay and also for settlement of disputes.
20. There is no case for the Petitioners that they had complied with the requirements by effecting the payment of 'Cess' in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1949; that they have filed any return in terms of Rule 7(i); that there was no fault or delay in satisfying the statutory requirement or further that they had raised any dispute before any of the competent authorities as to the liability or quantum. This being the position, the contention raised by the Petitioners in this regard is absolutely without any merit or bonafides.
21. There is a contention for the Petitioners that the levy of Cess is virtually a tax in disguise and that no tax can be levied without any authority of law, by virtue of mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. There is also a contention that in case of any Cess, there must be co-relation between levy and the services rendered (cess or fee) revealing the 'quid- pro-quo'. The verdicts passed by the Apex Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha, Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, {AIR 1954 SC 282, paragraph 44 to 51}, Jaora Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, {AIR 1966 SC 416, para 19}, Om Prakash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishore {AIR 1986 SC 726, paragraphs 7, 10 to 12} and Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan v. Jasjit Singh, Collector of Customs, Bombay, {AIR 1962 SC 204, paragraph 13} are sought to be pressed into service in this regard.
22. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the legal position made clear by the Apex Court in the above context. The purpose of levy is discernible from sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1981 Act which mentions the utilisation, also involving 'Research and Development' in the field of energy. The said provision is extracted below:
"3. Levy of energy development cess. -
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(3) The amount in the credit of the fund shall, at the discretion of the State Government be utilized for,-
(a) research and development in the field of energy including electrical energy as well as other conventional and non-conventional sources of energy;
(b) improving the efficiency of generation, transmission, distribution and utilization of energy including reduction of losses in transmission and distribution;
(c) research in design, construction, maintenance, operation and materials of the equipment used in the field of energy with a view to achieve optimum efficiency, continuity and safety;
(d) survey of energy sources including non-perennial sources to alleviate energy shortage;
(e) energy conservation programmes;
(f) extending such facilities and services to the consumers as may be deemed necessary;
(g) creation of a laboratory and testing facilities for testing of electrical appliances and equipments and other equipments used in the field of energy;
(h) programmes of training conducive to achieve any of the above objectives;
(i) transfer of technology in the field of energy;
(ii) any purpose connected with safety of electrical installations and
(j) any other purposes connected with improvement of generation, transmission, distribution or utilization of electrical and other forms of energy, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. Explanation."In this sub-section, 'energy' includes all conventional and non-conventional forms of energy."
23. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 1981 Act deals with the fate of the cess collected and under sub-section (1) which is to the following effect:
"(2) The proceeds of the cess under sub-section (1) shall first be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State and the State Government may, at the commencement of each financial year, after due appropriation has been made by law, withdraw from the Consolidated Fund of the State an amount equivalent to the proceeds of cess realized by the State Government in the preceding financial year and shall place it to the credit of a separate fund to be called the Energy Development Fund and such credit to the said fund shall be an expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh."
Sub-section (4) of Section 3 says that if any question arises as to whether the purpose for which the fund is being utilised is a purpose falling under sub-section (3) of Section 3 or not, the decision of the State Government therein shall be final and conclusive.
24. A conjoint reading of the above provisions clearly reveals the purpose of collection of EDC and its utilization, which clearly reflects the 'service' that is being rendered by utilising the amounts in connection with the field of generation, transmission, distribution and utilization of energy, research, development, survey and such other programmes, also involving transfer of technology in the field of energy. As it stands so, the idea and understanding of the Petitioners as to the lack of any service is quite wrong and misconceived.
25. The Petitioners attack Annexure P/1 order referring to the violation of the principles of natural justice as well, in so far as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given; nor any assessment was made as to the determination of the quantum of liability, unlike in the case of assessment of tax under various statutes. The fixation of liability towards the EDC is clear and certain, by virtue of the rate/quantum mentioned under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act. The liability of the Distributor to satisfy the Cess at the above rate with respect to number of units and the necessity to file return under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 1949 before the Electrical Inspector are also clear and definite. Since the number of units sold/supplied/ used by the Distributor is clearly within the knowledge of the Distributor and since the 'rate per unit' is also clearly stipulated in the statute itself, the rest is for the Petitioner/Distributor to show the relevant figures in the return to be filed before the Electrical Inspector after satisfaction of the duty in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1949. There is no ambiguity/obscurity in any manner and the statute does not envisage issuance of any notice as to the fixation of liability. This is something like the satisfaction of the tax payable in respect of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and such other similar statutes. When the statute is a 'self-contained' one as to the rate and the manner of satisfaction, fixing the extent of liability upon the Distributor, the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice with reference to non-issuance of notice or opportunity of hearing is not correct or sustainable and is unfounded. This being the position, the reliance sought to be placed on Kothari Filament v. Commissioner of Customs {(2009) 2 SCC 198 paragraph 15}, Municipal Committee, Hosiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board, {(2010) 13 SCC 216, paragraphs 31 to 36}, Kesar Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, {(2011) 13 SCC 711, paragraphs 23, 30 to 36} and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. Union of India, {(1981) 1 SCC 664, paragraphs 21 to 45} in respect of the violation of principles of natural justice is quite out of context and is not applicable.
26. The knowledge of the Petitioner/Distributor as to the liability to satisfy the EDC in terms of Section 3 and the relevant Rules is revealed from the materials on record. Even otherwise, there cannot be any defence with reference to the ignorance of law; as it is not an excuse. The fact that the Petitioner/Distributor was aware of the situation is clearly discernible from a copy of the agreement executed between the Petitioner-Company and one of the consumers, produced as Annexure R-1 alongwith the reply filed by the Respondents. The relevant portion of the said agreement dated 10.02.2006, which is in continuation of the agreement dated 12.03.2005, is extracted below:
"The charges for energy payable shall be on two part basis as under:-
Monthly fixed charges = contract demand in MVA x 1000 x 720 Hours x 0.9 PLF x 30 paise.
Actual energy consumed charges = Unit of Energy consumed in KWH during the month is Rs. 2.15 paise (including cess 10 paise per unit is applicable as on date.) The other terms and conditions for additional supply of 3000 KVA electrical energy shall be as per the terms and condition, specified in the agreement dated 12th Mach 2005."
27. Paragraph 20 of the agreement, as to the amount to be satisfied by the consumers, is to the following effect:
"20. (a) The consumer shall pay JSPL every month charges for electrical energy supplied to consumer as per this agreement made on the sale of power to the consumer and the charges for energy consumed by consumer during the said month will be on the following basis.
(b) The charges for energy payable shall be on two part basis consisting of Monthly fixed charges based on contract demand and Actual energy charges based on total energy consumed during the month.
Total Energy Charges = Monthly fixed charges + Actual energy charges Monthly fixed charges =Contract demand in MVA x 1000 x 720 Hours x 0.9 PLF x 30 paise Actual energy consumed charges = unit of Energy consumed in KWH during the month x Rs. 2.05 paise. The above energy charges have been calculated based on existing rate of royalty on coal, electricity duty applicable on generation and sale of power and other levies and duties. The rates of actual energy charges shall be revised in the event of any change in the rate of royalty on coal by Government of India and/or by State Government of Chhattisgarh, revision in the levies, duties etc. on generation and sale of energy.
(c) The maximum Contract Demand recorded during the month shall be evaluated based on 30 minutes average of the maximum power drawn during the month. If recorded Demand during the month exceeds the Contract Demand up to 10% once in a while, in that event the amount of total energy charges payable during the month shall be calculated as per clause 20(b) above.
If recorded demand exceeds the contract demand upto 10% continuously for 3 months, the consumer shall increase his contract demand accordingly and also should pay additional monthly fixed charges from the date of initial exceeded M.D., recorded. If recorded demand exceeds the contract demand beyond 10% in the event the amount of total energy charges payable during the month shall be calculated proportionately for contract demand at normal rates of total energy charges as given in clause 20(b) above and for extra MD recorded at 1.5 times of the normal tariff."
28. Paragraph 25 of the agreement clearly says that the tariff set out in the schedule vide paragraph 20 does not include any tax, duty or other charges which is applicable for consumption of electrical energy that may be payable in accordance with any law in force and that such charges shall be payable by the consumer in addition to the tariff charges. The said clause is also reproduced below:
"25. (a) The tariff set out in the schedule vide para 20 does not include any tax, duty or other charges, which is applicable on consumption of electrical energy that may be payable in accordance with any law in force. Such charges will be payable by the Consumer in addition to JSPL tariff charges."
29. The Petitioner-Company admits in the writ petition that it has been raising bills to its consumers for the electricity supplied to them. If the Petitioners were not raising any demand in respect of EDC in the bills raised to such consumers for the period from October 2007 to January 2014, it can only be the fault of the Petitioners and nobody else can be blamed in this regard. This is more so, since Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 which is adopted and made applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh starts with a 'non-obstante clause' and it says that a Distributor of electrical energy, subject to the limitations and conditions, if any, can recover from a consumer, by way of surcharge, the whole or part of the duty payable by such distribution of electrical energy under Section 3 in respect of all consumption of electrical energy. The Petitioners contend that it was not raised or demanded from the consumers because of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 02.11.2007, whereby the bills were permitted to be raised, however interdicting the recovery by way of coercive proceedings. The said order does not come to the rescue of the Petitioners in any manner, insofar as it was in respect of demand under Section 3(1-a) of the 1981 Act, fixing the liability of the 'Producer' of electrical energy and in the challenge raised before the Apex Court by the State against the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court setting aside the amending provision (CG Act No. 28 of 2004) whereby Section 3(1-a) was introduced. Even before and after, Section 3(1) was and is standing intact; which deals with liability of the 'Distributor' to satisfy the EDC. If the Petitioners had not satisfied the EDC in terms of Rule 3 and had not filed any return in terms of Rule 7(i) or had not demanded the consumers to reimburse it in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 1949, it can only be the fault of the Petitioners and nobody else.
30. There is a contention for the Petitioners that the Annexure P/1 has been issued all of a sudden, demanding arrears for about 7/8 years and as such, there is a faulty exercise of power by the 2 nd Respondent and hence the liability cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the Petitioners in respect of 'interest' to be satisfied for the delay. There is also a contention that the interest is excessive, as the 'maximum rate of 24%' has been imposed and it is penal in nature. Such extent of interest is stated as imposed under a wrong impression that the Petitioners had actually collected the Cess from the consumers, but had not deposited; as contended by the 2 nd Respondent. We find it difficult to agree. It is true that the respondents have mentioned in their reply that the Petitioners had collected the amounts (Cess) from the consumers and the same has not been deposited in the Government Treasury under the relevant head in terms of Rule 3; nor have they filed any return before the Electrical Inspector in terms of Rule 7(i) and as such, interest is liable to be paid in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act/Rules. Here, it has to be noted that, nowhere in the writ petition, have the Petitioners stated anything as to the collection of EDC from the consumers. The Petitioner Company obtained 'distributor licence' vide Annexure P/4 from the Respondent No. 1 in the year 2005. The statute was very much in existence then. The challenge against the statutory provision was raised for the first time only by filing the present writ petition in the year 2014. The assertion that the Petitioners have not demanded Cess from the consumers comes up for the first time only as per IA No. 4 of 2014 dated 19.08.2019 (for accepting additional documents by this Court). A specimen copy of the bill dated 31.03.2013 has been filed by the Petitioners as Document D-7 alongwith the said IA, wherein a 'note' has been given in the following terms:
"Note:
1. The case is pending with Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but demand is to raised as per S.C. order dated No. SLP No. 3853 dated 02.11.2007.
2. On receipt of final outcome of Appeals pending with Supreme Court there same will be passed on to you as per note on Reverse Side of this demand note."
We do not find it necessary to go into the relative rights and liberties between the Petitioners and the consumers; which is pending consideration before the learned Single Bench of this Court by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 2308 of 2015.
31. The only question is with regard to the 'rate of interest' adopted by the 2nd Respondent i.e. 24% which is the maximum as per the relevant Rules. The question is whether the said rate of interest of 24% has been imposed by the 2nd Respondent as a matter of penal measure, for the reason that the Petitioners, after collecting the Cess from the consumers has not remitted and has misappropriated it or not. The answer can only be in the 'negative', as discernible from the Rule and the relevant Notification issued in this regard.
32. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1949 reads as follows:
"5. Recovery of Duty and interest. - (1) Where the duty du
e is not paid within the period specified under rule 3, the same shall be paid thereafter with interest thereon at the rate prevailing in accordance with sub-rule (2). For the purpose of calculating the interest part of a month shall be treated as equal to a month. (2) The rate of interest payable under sub-rule (1) shall be such as may be fixed by the Provincial Government by notification from time to time subject to a maximum of 24% per annum." Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1949 says that interest is payable, if the duty is not paid within the period specified under Rule 3 and it shall be at the rate prevailing in accordance with sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) says that the rate of interest payable under sub-rule (1) shall be as notified by the Government from time to time, subject to a maximum of 24% per annum. The question is whether the Government has issued any notification and if 'yes', what is the interest payable as per the said notification. 33. It is relevant to note that Notification dated 22.07.1975 has been issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1949, which is in supersession of all previous orders in this regard. The same reads as follows: "NOTIFICATION Notification No. 2698-3752-XIII, dated the 22nd July, 1975. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 and in supersesion of the previous orders in this respect, the State Government directs that the interest under sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 shall be payable at the following rates. This Notification will be effective from 1st August, 1975. Rate of Interest After the prescribed period:- (i) on payment made within three months @ 12% p.a. (ii) on payment made after three months @ 15% p.a. but within six months (iii) on payment made after six months @ 20% p.a. but within 12 months (iv) on payment made after 12 months @ 24% p.a. (Published in MP Rajpatra Part I, dated 12-3-76 page 473)." From the above, it is explicitly clear that, if the payment is made after the prescribed period but within three months, interest payable shall be 12% per annum, whereas it will be at the rate of 15% per annum if it is effected after three months but within six months. Once the payment is effected after six months but within 12 months, interest has to be satisfied at the rate of 20% per annum and if the payment is made beyond the period of 12 months, interest has to be satisfied at the rate of 24% per annum. 34. Coming back to the case in hand, it is to be noted that the Petitioner-Company has no case that it has satisfied the EDC in respect of the period from October 2007 to January 2014 at any point of time. The delay obviously is of more than 12 months, for the period from October 2007 to April, 2013 and hence, 24% interest has been charged, as reflected from the facts and figures given in the table forming part of Annexure P/2. In respect of the period from May 2013 to October 2013, the delay is more than 6 months, but within six months and hence, interest charged is only at the rate of 20%. In respect of the period from November 2013 to January 2014, the delay is only more than 3 months but within six months and hence, the interest payable only at the rate of 15% alone has been reckoned for the purpose of computing the liability. In other words, the entire amount due is not taken together, applying a uniform rate of interest of 24%; but it has been worked out at the varying rates from 15 to 24%, strictly in conformity with the Notification issued under Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1949. Admittedly, the Rule is not under challenge. As it stands so, the contention raised by the Petitioners that the rate of interest adopted by the 2 nd Respondent is onerous, questionable and penal in nature, is without any pith or substance. 35. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the Petitioners have failed in establishing a case before this Court with regard to the alleged ultra vires nature of Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, nor have they succeeded in substantiating the case to dispute the liability towards the Electricity Duty Cess and interest. 36. The writ petition fails. It is dismissed accordingly.


text:
Home » Blog » News from General Synod » Yukon bishop's ministry of presence brings him back to parish life
Yukon bishop's ministry of presence brings him back to parish life
7 Apr, 2017 in News from General Synod tagged Matt Gardner by tcosach
Bishop Larry Robertson (left) joins a craft-making session during a Lenten event at the Church of the Northern Apostles in Whitehorse, Yukon, where he currently serves as rector. Submitted photo
Making crafts with children is not the first activity one typically thinks of when considering Episcopal ministry. But for Bishop Larry Robertson, it's all part of the job in his new role as rector of the Church of the Northern Apostles in Whitehorse, Yukon.
Since last summer, Bishop Robertson has been serving a hybrid role as both parish rector and diocesan bishop in the Anglican Diocese of Yukon. The move is part of an effort to meet the ministry needs of the community with limited resources in a diocese that has just three stipendiary priests. The bishop and the diocesan executive have developed a new ministry of presence, calling the bishop to engage in parish ministry for a three-year period. This will be in addition to Bishop Robertson's Episcopal ministry.
On March 24 at the Church of the Northern Apostles in Whitehorse, Yukon, a Lenten event was held to prepare for Easter. Participants—including elders and young people—gathered for teaching and children's ministry, a longtime focus for Robertson since before his ordination to the priesthood. Approximately 18 people attended the event, which also included a potluck, craft-making, and learning new songs for Easter.
Crafts consisted of making butterflies out of tissue paper and cellophane, as well as creating family prayer beads, which the bishop saw as a helpful way to teach children to pray.
"This is the first time we've had [the Lenten event], to see how it went, and it went very, very well … I thought it was a good time," Robertson said.
"I [felt] rather awkward, because I just started [at the parish]—I haven't been in a parish in … almost 15 years I guess, now," he laughed. "So I'm sort of re-learning again, and the parish is just beginning to gel together."
Officially, Bishop Robertson is only present at the parish half-time. Lay leaders and other community members support outreach, lead Bible studies, and produce bulletins and schedules for daily readers.
Along with his focus on Anglicans already attending the parish, Bishop Robertson is mindful of new outreach opportunities. He noted that construction is currently underway on a new Whitehorse suburb known as Whistle Bend, located just south of the parish.
"We've been very blessed with a congregation that wants to grow … We're going to have to look at how we reach out to this whole new sort of subdivision which is just opening up," he said. "They're talking about 8,000-10,000 people being in there in the next few years … We have to be prepared and be ready for them."
While the idea of a bishop taking on a parish role may be relatively new, it reflects the unique conditions that many bishops face in some northern dioceses, where parishes are often remote and isolated from each other and stipendiary clergy are a rare commodity.
"Our work compared to southern city bishops is different," Robertson said. "Our ministries are different. I find we're much more pastoral in the sense of hands-on [activity]. Many of our parishes don't have clergy, and so we find ourselves doing services. We find ourselves doing AGMs. I did the AGM for St. Christopher's [Anglican Church] in Haines Junction this year, simply because there's no minister there now this year."
Though he has received queries from other bishops asking about his ministry of presence and the experience of taking on a parish, there is as of yet no sign that other dioceses are considering similar proposals.
With the experiment still only in its first year, the diocese will need time to evaluate the program and decide on how it plans to proceed after the conclusion of Bishop Robertson's three-year parish tenure.
For now, the bishop is content to enjoy the experience of returning to ministry to a parish community.
"It's refreshing," he said. "Oftentimes [bishops] don't get a chance to be there, and to be with children and to be with parish things. These are the sort of happy, joyful times in a parish where you see them gathering and growing together, and for me, that's exciting … I'm enjoying it tremendously."
www.anglican.ca

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q&A with Ezra Katz: Notable deals and what lies ahead
On firm's history and where he'll invest $200 million this year
By Katherine Kallergis | January 20, 2015 02:36PM
Ezra Katz
Ezra Katz has handled multi-million dollar transactions in South Florida, ranging from the Fontainebleau Hotel financing (twice) to portfolios of office buildings in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.
Katz, the founder and CEO of the Aztec Group and Mayan Properties, sat down with The Real Deal as his company announced its most recent deal, the sale of a downtown Miami building to Aria Development, the same group building a Yotel hotel nearby.
What kind of properties do you invest in?
Hotels, shopping centers, apartments and office buildings, predominantly. We buttress that with land investments and industrial, self-storage. You name it, we've touched it. We aren't in the investment game to hold for multi-generational periods. We really had a fairly sizable concentration in office buildings and hotels.
How have the Aztec Group and Mayan Properties grown since you started in 1981?
At that time, it was purely a fee-earning company. I didn't start the Mayan side of the business until a little over 20 years ago. Mayan was conceived from the very beginning as an investment strategy to create partnerships and to diversify — not only in property types, but also geographically.
Today, my focus is oriented more toward investments on the principals' side (Mayan Properties), although I do still love the deal-making side (Aztec Group). Having spent well over 30 years on the Aztec side, and having had somewhat of a successful run, it forces me to invest our capital. It's a very challenging environment, particularly in South Florida, which is why we've invested outside of Florida.
How did the recession affect your business?
"We felt uncomfortable with the economy; we felt uncomfortable with the fundamentals."
We managed to sell hotels and office buildings in the mid-2000s. Luckily, that turned out to be a good decision because of the recession. I would probably attribute that to a lot of good luck rather than having foreseen the recession, but it was consistent with our strategy of looking at properties, adding value to them, and being disciplined enough to commit to an investment and get out of an investment when we've essentially obtained a value we felt was reasonable and sell. We stuck to that.
We pretty much sat out between 2009 and 2011 for no other reason than we were confused. It was a very difficult time to make a decision. We felt uncomfortable with the economy; we felt uncomfortable with the fundamentals.
I don't believe in making predictions when predictions are unpredictable. A lot of people took risks in 2009, 2010, 2011 and were rewarded for it. I did not feel it was appropriate to take my money, and that of my partners, and risk it in those years. However, we did make some investments in those years, but we were extremely liquid. We built and opened the Renaissance Hotel in Raleigh, North Carolina, in January 2009, arguably the worst year you could probably open a hotel. They not only did great the first year, but they paid debt service and distributed money, which was unthinkable.
We could have done a lot more. And, we have no regrets.
Rendering of a Hampton Inn in Midtown Miami that Katz is building
What are some high-profile transactions that stand out over the years?
I guess, the Fontainebleau is memorable. I financed it twice — $100 million each time. Ultimately, I worked with the owner to sell it to the current owner. It represents over 15 years of activity. We did the Mayfair in Coconut Grove transaction twice.
In my initial years of business in the early 1980s, I sold 13 high-rise apartment buildings in one transaction, which at that time was the largest transaction ($142 million) in Florida, in Miami and Broward County. It kind of put me on the map.
We represented Craig Robins and sold his Lincoln Road portfolio to Terranova. That was a really challenging, but very creative transaction.
There's a lot of optimism about the South Florida market right now. Do you agree?
I think it's the most difficult question of all to deal with. I'll tell you this: I'm absolutely optimistic about South Florida. Does that translate into the concept that everything's going to continue to be good and grow? Are prices going to continue to increase? We're inevitably reaching some sort of plateau. There are a lot of residential units in the high-rise condo market. The word that needs to be put out there is discipline by developers and bankers. But I'm optimistic about the future of Miami. I love that young people are coming here. My kids love it here. I never thought they would come back to Miami. I think those are good indicators.
What are your plans for 2015?
We'll continue to diversify our investment base from a property, conceptual and geographical point of view. We hope to invest as much as $200 million this year — at least 50 percent will be in hotels and office buildings. Shopping centers will probably eat up 20 to 25 percent of the capital.
"I talk to the market. I love listening to what's going on in the marketplace."
What's a typical day like for you?
There's no typical day, which is why I like doing what I do. I talk to the market. I love listening to what's going on in the marketplace. We're in the real estate business and that's all we do. We don't understand anything else.
What do you think about the resurgence of Coconut Grove?
I love it. I lived in the Grove 30 years ago. I got married in the Grove. My wife and I always said we're going to move back when we're old, and we are going to move back at the end of this year. We got a unit on the 18th floor in the Grove at Grand Bay [next-door]. I'm going to zipline to work.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Tags: aztec group, Ezra Katz, mayan properties
TRD News delivered straight to your inbox
All rights reserved © 2019	The Real Deal is a registered Trademark of Korangy Publishing Inc.
3050 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 604, Miami, FL 33137


text:
Inspiro Tequila
The Inspiro Purple Bicycle Project
Inspiring Others
At Inspiro Tequila, our mission is not only to craft high-quality spirits, we are also proudly committed to supporting female founders who like us were inspired to follow their passion.
That's why we created the Inspiro Purple Bicycle Project.
Why a purple bicycle?
It all starts when our founder Mara Smith was four years old…
"You are too little."
"You can't even reach the pedals."
"A four-year-old can't ride a 24-inch bicycle."
"You'll fall."
"This little bike with training wheels is better for you."
The adults were giving me their advice, but it was just noise in my ears because there in front of me was a brand-new purple bicycle, with spotless white tires and sparkling chrome handlebars. It spoke to me of independence and the ability to go faster and farther than I had ever gone. I knew that I was going to ride it no matter what.
With one hand against a fence for balance, I placed my feet on the pedals. I was too short to sit on the seat, so I realized I was going to have to ride standing up. I pushed off and fell. I mounted and fell and mounted and fell the entire morning. I refused to go in for lunch. I continued and finally felt my feet pushing down on the pedals, circling once, twice, three times. Just when I got my balance, there was a crack in the pavement. One moment I was on the bike. The next it was on me. Ignoring the slight trickle of blood on my knee, I grabbed the slightly scratched purple beauty, lifted it upright, and mounted again. It took a few more hours, and finally I was moving, wheels meeting the sidewalk and legs on automatic. My purple bicycle not only opened the road to independence, but also gave me the confidence to persevere despite the odds.
With the Inspiro Purple Bicycle Project we hope to inspire and empower women who have been told, "You don't have any industry experience. You've been out of the workforce for too long. Starting your own company is risky and very few startups make it."
The Inspiro Purple Bicycle Project is here to financially support and mentor female founders enabling them to get started, manage the bumps along the way, and move forward to follow their dreams.
In 2021, we proudly sponsored the WFN Fast Pitch Competition.
In May 2022, we sponsored a professional development grant through the Enthuse Foundation.
In Sept 2022 We are sponsoring Pay It Forward grants through Ifundwomen
Clean, green and crafted by @liza_bean in time for
She may look innocent...she's anything but. Lucky
From start to finish, our meticulous process, desi
You better believe it! #InspiroTequila
Did you know tequila brands aren't required to d
Hitting the road for an action packed work-with da
Smooth enough to sip on its own
Confirmed additive-free
Zero Sugars
Women owned, operated and created
Be inspired • Live inspired • Drink inspired •
At Inspiro Tequila, our mission isn't only to craft high-quality spirits, we're also proudly committed to supporting female founders who like us were inspired to follow their passion. That's why we created the Inspiro Purple Bicycle Project. Please read more about our initiatives.
Our newsletter features women who inspire us, cocktails by amazing female mixologists and many more Inspiro insights. Sign up and be inspired.
TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT | FAQ
Imported by Inspiro Tequila LLC.
Tequila 40% ALC by Vol.
©2021 INSPIRO TEQUILA LLC.
PLEASE SIP AND ENJOY RESPONSIBLY
Inspiro Tequila is an exciting new brand, but we weren't born yesterday. How about you?
Are you of legal drinking age?
By clicking YES, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.


text:
The Ancient and Pagan Origin of Christmas
Most of the traditions we practice on December 25th have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus, which probably actually occurred in late summer or early fall. In fact, most of the customs and traditions of Christmas actually pre-date the birth of Jesus. Here are a few examples:
The date of December 25th probably originated with the ancient birthday of the son-god, Mithra, a pagan deity whose religious influence became widespread in the Roman Empire during the first few centuries A.D. Mithra was related to the Semitic sun-god, Shamash, and his worship spread throughout Asia to Europe where he was called Deus Sol Invictus Mithras. Rome was well-known for absorbing the pagan religions and rituals of its widespread empire. As such, Rome converted this pagan legacy to a celebration of the god, Saturn, and the rebirth of the sun god during the winter solstice period. The winter holiday became known as Saturnalia, and began the week prior to December 25th. The festival was characterized by gift-giving, feasting, singing and downright debauchery, as the priests of Saturn carried wreaths of evergreen boughs in procession throughout the Roman temples.
But after the conversion of emperor Constantine in 313 A.D. to Christianity, this new religion was spread throughout the empire and Mithraism, as St. Jerome reports, was forcefully subdued, especially in Rome and in Alexandria. In 376 A.D. Pope Leo destroyed the temple of Mithra. Despite that, the Mithraic festival of the birth of the Sun continued, as it was fun to be merry in the middle of the winter. It was not till the year 530 AD that the church commissioned the Monk Dionysius Exiguus to proclaim this popular time of the year as the birth of Christ. Constantine converted to Christianity, but he kept celebrating this pagan festival, and transformed it into the Christian holiday of Christmas.
Many of the symbols associated with the modern holiday of Christmas such as the burning of the Yule log, the eating of ham, the hanging of boughs, holly, mistletoe, etc. are apparently derived from traditional northern European Yule celebrations. When the first missionaries began converting the Germanic peoples to Christianity, they found it easier to simply provide a Christian reinterpretation for popular feasts such as Yule and allow the celebrations themselves to go on largely unchanged, rather than trying to suppress them.
The use of evergreen trees during Christmas comes from Germany, where it was used in the Yule Time worship and celebration, as well as in observance of the resurrected sun god, and of the Winter Solstice. The evergreen represented life, and also was regarded as a phallic symbol in fertility worship.
It was believed that the red berries of the holly was a symbol of the menstrual blood of the queen of heaven, Diana. The white berries of mistletoe were considered to be the droplets of the semen of the sun god. Branches of holly and mistletoe were hung in doorways of temples and homes, and it was believed that kissing beneath them will make the spirits of the god and goddess to enter one's body and make them fertile.
The Scandinavian tradition of slaughtering a pig at Christmas, and not in the autumn, is evidence of this conversion. The tradition derives from the sacrifice to the god Freyr
at the Yule celebrations. Halloween and Easter are theorized to have been likewise assimilated from northern European pagan festivals.
English historian Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum ("Ecclesiastic History of the English People") contains a letter from Pope Gregory I to Saint Mellitus, who was then on his way to England to conduct missionary work among the heathen Anglo-Saxons. The Pope suggests that converting heathens is easier if they are allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditional pagan practices and traditions, while recasting those traditions spiritually towards the one true God, instead of to their pagan gods (whom the Pope refers to as "devils"), "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". The Pope sanctions such conversion tactics as Biblically acceptable, pointing out that God did much the same thing with the ancient Israelites and their pagan sacrifices.
Although the Christian celebration of the birth of Christ was superimposed upon ancient Pagan traditions, it does not, or should not, diminish the arrival of the "Prince of Peace", and his original message of tolerance, compassion, giving and peace. Who ever you worship, it is a time of joy, of giving, compassion, of praying for peace and of gift giving and celebration!
www.wejees.net


text:
F1 car's a winner at store
SUCCESSFUL FORMULA - With the Jordan car are, from left, back, Mandy Gillian and Emily Swanston, and, front, brothers Sean and Kevin Fox
SHOPPERS at the Asda supermarket in Tilehurst were given the chance to take a close look at a Formula One car at the weekend.
Staff from the Jordan team took time off from preparations for the British Grand Prix at Silverstone to pop into the car park of the Honey End Lane store on Sunday to help staff raise money for Highclose Barnado's school in Wokingham.
Shoppers were able to pay £1 to have their
pictures taken with the car and the snaps will be
displayed in the store.
Youngsters also played in a bouncy castle and a team from Carling was there with give-aways and a prize draw.
Marion Dowling, the store events organiser, said: "The day went really well and £165 was raised for Barnado's."


text:
THE MIKOYAN-Gurevich MiG-31 Foxhound is one of the most powerful interceptors flying today. It owes its outstanding capability to a combination of performance, weaponry, and avionics. Even though it first flew more than 30 years ago, it is still Russias most effective air defence interceptor. The aircraft forms the backbone of its air defence force and will continue to do so well into the 21st century.
In the late 1960s, the Soviet Government began the search for a new long-range, extended endurance interceptor to replace its Tupolev Tu-28s and MiG-25 Foxbats. It was intended to counter the threat of low-flying cruise missiles launched from NATO/US B-52s and B-ls, which the MiG-25 was unable to do. MiG-25s functioned well as high-altitude interceptors with the help of ground control data links, as their original mission was to intercept the USAF's high-altitude Mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie bomber. However, the B-70 never went into production on account of defence cutbacks. The Foxbat's avionics and performance were largely ineffective against low-flying targets and so a more capable aircraft was needed.
From the late 1960s onwards, NATO bombers and attack aircraft changed tactics and were flying ever-lower attack profiles intended to avoid the growing threat of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). Newly-introduced cruise missiles were also flying low and fast, proving difficult to intercept. The MiG-25 was unable to fly at supersonic speeds at low level, and this was a serious disadvantage in intercepting enemy aircraft and missiles. The Soviets needed a replacement that was supersonic at all altitudes and able to attack low-flying and multiple small targets. For this, far more efficient engines were required, together with completely new avionics and a dedicated rear crewmember to manage them.
Development of the new aircraft, designated MiG-31, began in 1967 and on May 24, 1968, the Soviet Government ordered production of a prototype, designated Ye-155MP. The MiG-31 was to carry the Zaslon phased array radar capable of detecting all types of aerial targets flying at long ranges and varying altitudes, making the MiG-31 independent from ground control. Under normal circumstances the rear radar operator would guide the pilot to the target, but the MiG-31 could also be guided by ground control using a digital datalink.
The Ye-155MP (serial 831) made its maiden flight on September 16, 1975, with chief test pilot Aleksandr Fedotov at the controls. The second prototype (serial 832) first flew on April 22 the following year, again piloted by Fedotov. This aircraft had the complete avionics suite, including the Zaslon radar and infra:red sensor, as well as reduced wing area and smaller under-fuselage fins. Sadly, Fedotov and his crewmember both died in a MiG-31 crash on April 4, 1984, when the aircraft's systems failed. Development progressed slowly and by 1977 two pre-production aircraft (serials 011 and 012) had been built by the Sokol Aviation Manufacturing Plant at Nizhny Novgorod: 012 first few on June 30 and 011 on July 13, 1977. Compared to the first two prototypes, these aircraft had increased span flaps, revised wings, taller vertical tails and GSh-6-23 cannons, each cannon with six 23mm barrels. In May 1977 the first round of official testing began, ending in December 1978. Following satisfactory results, which included a MiG-31 tracking no fewer than ten targets simultaneously with its Zaslon radar on February 15, 1978, production at Sokol commenced in 1979. A wide variety of aircraft were used during MiG-31 testing , including two Tu-104s used to test the Zaslon radar, a MiG-21 for R-33 missile development, and three MiG-25s for R-33 missiles, engines and avionics integration. The second stage of official testing began in September 1979 and ended exactly one year later. Production started in 1979 and about 450 Foxhounds were built, the last production Foxhound being delivered in April 1994. Initial MiG-31 deliveries to Air Force units began in 1981 and by 1983 initial operational capability was achieved. By the end of the year, the MiG-31 was serving with eleven regiments, replacing MiG-23s, Sukhoi Su-15s and Tu-28s in the air defence role. By 1987, more than 150 MiG-31 s were deployed across the Soviet Union, notably in the east and west.
First sighting
Around 315 MiG-31 s are believed to be in service with Russian air defence forces and tactical units, and around 34 in Kazakhstan: the latter aircraft, flying with the 356th IAP (Istrebitel'nyi Aviatsionny Polk or Fighter Aviation Regiment) based at Semipalatinsk, were left in Kazakhstan after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Sokol plant at Nizhny Novgorod has stated its willingness to re-start production of the MiG-31, to meet even small orders. So far none have been received, despite persistent reports of interest from Iran and Syria.
The first time the Western world got wind of the MiG-31 was when the Soviet pilot Viktor Ivonovich Belenko defected to Japan. Originally based at the 513th Fighter Regiment of Soviet Air Defence Command in Siberia, he flew his MiG-25 to Hakodate in September 1976. When questioned by the US (he went to America and was allowed to live there), he described the MiG-31 as a «super Foxbat» with two seats, a strengthened fuselage and powerful look-down/shoot-down radar. However, it was not until 1978 that the aircraft was first observed. A US spy satellite viewed one of the prototype or pre-production machines flying at 19,690ft (6,000m) intercepting a cruise missile-sized target drone flying at 200ft (60m) altitude and 12 miles (20km) from the MiG-31. In mid-1982 NATO designated the aircraft Foxhound'. The West finally got a good look at the MiG-31 in 1985 when a Norwegian pilot intercepted a Foxhound over the Barents Sea and took some pictures of it. It was suspected that this might have been a staged photo opportunity designed to unveil the aircraft.
'Like A Rocket'
Although the MiG-31 looks roughly like the MiG-25, it is a completely new and vastly more capable machine. The basic Foxbat configuration has been retained, with high-mounted sweptback wings, a rectangular and diagonally cut air intake on each side of the fuselage, twin ventral fins under the tail and backward-tapered twin tail fins canted slightly outward. The MiG-31 has a new airframe strengthened to 5g, as opposed to the MiG-25's 4.5g, making it capable of supersonic speeds at low altitude — it can fly at an impressive Mach 1.23 (932mph or 1,500km/h) at sea level. While the MiG-25's airframe was constructed from 80% nickel steel, 11% aluminium and 8% titanium, the MiG-31 has a new airframe consisting of 49% arc-welded nickel steel, 33% light metal alloy, 16% titanium and 2% composites. This should have made the Foxhound a much lighter aircraft than its predecessor, but the addition of new systems ultimately resulted in the MiG-31 being considerably heavier than the MiG-25.
Pilots have said that the MiG-31 was sophisticated, fast, had a long range and could climb «like a rocket». And its lack of agility was more than adequately compensated for by its ability to engage virtually any possible target from an extremely long stand-off range.
The MiG-31's wing is very different from that of its predecessor and has a new third main wing spar, which gives it significantly greater strength. The most notable difference is the new LERX (Leading Edge Root Extension), which have a sweep angle of 70°. Both wings are swept back at 41 °, have a small anhedral of 4° from the roots, and a fence mounted above each underwing stores pylon. Each wing has four-section titanium leading-edge slats that occupy the whole leading edge, two-section trailing-edge flaps and large span flaperons near the wingtips. The leading-edge slats deploy automatically at low speeds and are used for manoeuvring. The horizontal tailplanes are all-moving, and the vertical tails have inset rudders and shallow fairings forward of the base of the leading edge. The landing gear on the MiG-31 is also completely new and is a retractable tricycle type. The rearward retracting twin nosewheel unit moves into the fuselage, unlike the MiG-25, in which the nosewheels were further down the fuselage and retracted forwards. The main gear features two wheels on each main unit, retracting forward into an air intake trunk. Although the twin wheels are in tandem, they are slightly staggered, so that the rear wheel does not follow in the track of the front one, making operation easier from snow, gravel or unprepared ground. There is a small forward-hinged airbrake under the front of each engine intake trunk forward of the main gear doors. Other landing gear equipment consists of twin cruciform braking parachutes stowed in a fairing between and above the engine exhausts.
One of the most important requirements for the MiG-31 was not increased speed, but longer range, and in order to achieve this, new and more efficient engines were needed. The Aviadvigatel D-30F6 turbofan was chosen, though, surprisingly, it was not a new engine, being developed from a commercial turbofan and adapted to use high-density T6 fuel. In order to accommodate this massive engine (277.2in [7,040mm] long and with a diameter of 40.2in or 1,020mm), the air intakes were enlarged and, together with the fuselage, designed to contribute lift. Even though the fuselage was redesigned to accommodate the engines, the jet nozzles extend rearwards from the tail, unlike those of the MiG-25. Apart from being more efficient, the new air intakes also feature a moving inlet ramp and a lower moving inlet lip, and have auxiliary inlet doors in their roofs. Each engine produces 20,945lb (93.16kN) of thrust dry and 34,1701b (151.99kN) with afterburning.
The redesigned and lengthened fuselage was able to accommodate even more fuel than the MiG-25 -total internal fuel capacity is an incredible 4,386 Imp gallons (19,940 litres) in seven fuselage tanks, four wing tanks and two 'wet' fin tanks. This weighs a massive 34,1701b (15,500kg) and to keep the centre of gravity within limits is constantly shifted around the various tanks. There is also provision for two underwing fuel tanks, each with a capacity of 550 Imp gallons (2,500 litres), and a semi-retractable flight refuelling probe on the port side of the front fuselage, just ahead of the cockpit.
Formidable Avionics
The MiG-31 design team originally considered placing the two crewmembers side by side, but in the end a tandem seat arrangement was followed. The pilot sits in front, with the weapons systems/radar operator behind. Both crew sit under individual rearward-hinged canopies, although the rear cockpit has only small side windows in its metal frame and is faired into a shallow dorsal spine which extends to forward of the jet nozzles. This gives the rear crewmember a very limited view and to compensate, he is provided with a retractable periscope. The rear cockpit has a simple set of flight controls, allowing the rear crew member to fly the aircraft in an emergency. Both crew sit on Zvezda K-36DM zero/zero ejection seats with built-in massage pads to keep them comfortable on long patrol missions. The pilot's seat has a heated backrest to allow for extended periods of ground alert
One of the keys to the MiG-31's success is its formidable array of advanced digital avionics, especially its long-range radar. Its primary sensor is the NIIP Zaslon (in full, this is actually N007 S-800 SBI-16 [RP-31] Zaslon, meaning Shield, though designated Flash Dance by NATO) electronically scanned, phased array, fire control radar. The first such radar to enter service, it offers exceptional performance, with a search range of 124 miles (200km) in a clutter-free forward sector and 56 miles (90km) rearwards, and can track targets at 75 miles (120km). It was also the first Soviet radar with true look-down/shoot-down performance. It can track ten targets and engage four of them simultaneously, the targets being prioritised by the aircraft's Argon-15 digital mission computer. Also connected to the digital computer is a semi-retractable Type 8 TP infra-red search and track sensor below the cockpit.
Communications fit is fairly comprehensive, consisting of UHF and HF communications radios, identification friend or foe (IFF) transmitter and receiver and transponder. Most, but not all, MiG-31 s appear to have APD-518 digital air-to¬air datalinks — when flying in a four-aircraft group intercept formation, the lead aircraft is linked to the AK-RLDN automatic guidance network on the ground while the other three MiG-31 s have datalinks to the lead aircraft, permitting a line-abreast radar sweep zone 495 to 560 miles (800 to 900km) wide. The air-to-air datalink can be used to communicate with Antonov An-50 Mainstay airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft. The MiG-31 is also fitted with the MB5U15K air-to-ground tactical datalink and BAN-75 command link.
Navigation avionics are comprehensive, as they were originally designed to allow the MiG-31 to patrol deep into Arctic airspace in search of threatening Western aircraft. Trial flights included such Arctic sorties, including one aircraft flying over the North Pole.
Navigation avionics consist of Marshrut long-range and Tropik medium-range radio navigation systems (similar to the US Omega and Loran respectively), as well as Shoran, Loran, radio compass, radar altimeter and marker beacon receiver. Other miscellaneous avionics consist of a voice warning system, intercom and radar homing and warning system (RHAWS). Countermeasures include active electronic warfare equipment and UV-3A flares dispensers.
Unlike the MiG-25, the MiG-31 has an internal gun, the GSh-6-23M six-barrel Gatling-type 23mm cannon, placed inside a fairing on the starboard side of the lower fuselage just behind the right landing gear door. It has a rate of fire of between 6,000 and 8,000 rounds per minute and is provided with 260 linkless rounds. It appears that early Foxhounds had only two underwing pylons, but aircraft now have four pylons. The MiC-31's main weapon is the Vympel R-33 or R-33S (designated AA-9 Amos by NATO) long-range air-to-air missile (AAM) with a range of 70 miles (110km). Its guidance is either by semi-active radar homing or inertial with the option of mid-course update from the launch aircraft. Four missiles can be carried in pairs on AKU ejector pylons semi-recessed under the fuselage, similar to the Grumman F-14 Tomcat. Because the underside of the fuselage is flat and not 'dished' between the engine ducts as on the MiG-25, it is much easier for the MiG-31 to carry missiles under its fuselage. All four R-33s can be launched in salvo, each seeking out a different target simultaneously.
The MiG-31 can also carry two R-40T (designated AA-6 Acrid by NATO) medium-range infra-red homing or inertially-guided air-to-air missiles on the inner underwing pylons with a range of 48 miles (78km). Four short-range R-60 (NATO-designated AA-8 Aphid) infra-red homing air-to-air missiles with a range of 7 miles (12km) can be carried in pairs on the outer underwing pylons.
A large number of improved Foxhound derivatives were either produced or proposed. The first major modification was the fitting of the semi-retractable in-flight refuelling probe. Although the Foxhound did not originally need it, as range was considered adequate, the aircraft's impressive performance prompted field commanders to consider it for other long-range missions, such as escorting maritime patrol aircraft. These missions challenged the Foxhound's range so the refuelling probe was fitted to between 40 and 45 later-production aircraft and retrofitted to other early-production examples. Standard-production aircraft are designated Foxhound-A: those with the refuelling probe are unofficially designated MiG-31 DZ.
MiG-31 B: This was the second production and service variant with improved Zaslon-A radar, electronic countermeasures (ECM), electronic warfare (EW) equipment, improved R-40TD and R-60 AAMs, upgraded R-33S missiles, flight refuelling probe and improved A-723 long-range navigation system compatible with Loran/Omega and Chaika ground stations. It replaced the Foxhound-A in production in late 1990. Many older MiG-31 s were upgraded by the Gorky factory to this standard and were designated MiG-31 BS. In July 2000 an agreement was reached between the MiG company and the Russian Air Force to upgrade half the Air Force's 280 MiG-31 s. It is not clear to which standard they will be upgraded: either the MiG-31 B standard or the superior MiG-31 BM.
MIG-31E: This designation is given to the export version of the Foxhound-A, the one and only prototype (serial 903) of which was first seen in 1997. It has downgraded systems, no active jammer, downgraded IFF and radar. It was offered to India, China and other countries, and is presumably the version the Chinese almost bought in 1992. The variant was later cancelled.
MiG-31 Eh: Designated Eh for Ehksport (export), this variant was proposed to China in 2000 and announced at the Zhuhai Air Show on November 6, 2000. It appears to have been rejected.
MiG-31 F: This projected multi-role interceptor and fighter-bomber would be able to carry a variety of TV, radar- and laser-guided air-to-surface missiles (ASMs). It would also feature other changes.
MiG 31BM: The MiG-31 BM designation was applied to a proposed defence suppression and ground attack variant based on the MiG-31 F. Work on the aircraft began in 1997 and in August 1998 a demonstrator was shown with R-33S missiles under its fuselage and R-77, Kh-58 and Kh-31P missiles under its wings'. The MiG-31 BM designation is now applied to the single-role interceptor upgrade to be applied to the MiG-31 Bs in service. The MiG-31 BM has replaced the original MiG-31 M upgrade originally offered. The aircraft is able to carry R-37M1 and R-77M2 air-to-air missiles, has upgraded radar, a satellite navigation system and new cockpit displays. MiG-31 Fs, FEs and BMs will all have an upgraded radar incorporating technology developed for the MiG-31's Zaslon-M. This will give a detection capability against ultra high-speed targets travelling at more than Mach 6, and afford longer range, better resolution and new synthetic aperture and real-beam mapping modes for the air-to-ground role. The new cockpit displays consist of a head-up display (HUD), pilot's tactical situation display, which is a 6 x 8in (152 x 203mm) colour Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), Multi Function Display (MFD), and three MFDs for the navigator. Weapons fit has been increased: the MiG-31 BM (and presumably the F and FE) can carry R-33S, R-37 and R-77 AAMs, as well as Kh-58E and Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) and possibly Kh-59, Kh-29L/T and Kh-59M ASMs3. Upgraded MiG-31 s may also incorporate structural changes to increase service life, but this cannot be confirmed. Two MiG-31 BMs were built and a prototype was publicly demonstrated in 1999, but lack of funding has hampered further development.
MiG-31 D: This was a dedicated anti-satellite model with a flat under-surface fuselage without recesses, with underwing Vympel anti-satellite missiles and no gun. It was also fitted with large triangular winglets above and below the wingtips to provide stability for missile launches at high altitudes. Two prototypes with ballast instead of radar in their noses were built in 1986 and flight-tested in 1987, but production was cancelled. A single missile and a special upward-looking radar and fire-control system was to be fitted to production aircraft.
MiG-31 FE/MF: This designation is applied to the proposed export versions of the MiG-31 BM or MiG-31 F.
MiG-31 LL: One early Foxhound was converted as a dedicated test aircraft (hence the LL, standing for the Russian acronym of 'flying laboratory') for use at the Zhukovsky flight test centre and was used as an ejection seat test-bed. It is also reported to have had fairings for cameras on its wingtips.
MiG-31 M Foxhound B The most important and capable Foxhound variant yet produced. Under development since 1984 and first flown on December 21, 1985, it was designed as a radically improved interceptor with upgraded engines, accommodation, avionics, weapons and more fuel. It incorporates new engines with modified nozzles, a one-piece rounded windscreen, small side windows only for the rear cockpit, a wider and deeper dorsal spine containing 66 Imp gallons (300 litres) of additional fuel and a fully retractable refuelling probe mounted on the starboard side of the fuselage. As a result of internal changes, fuel weight is increased to a massive 36,0451b (16,350kg). The wings were modified with larger curved root extensions and smaller upper wing fences. The tail was also modified, with taller fins featuring more rounded tips with flush dielectric areas at the front and rear. All systems were upgraded, some of the changes consisting of digital flight controls, multi-function cathode ray tube (CRT) cockpit displays (three are fitted in the rear cockpit) and a non-retractable pod with an infra-red search and track sensor and laser ranger. A new multi-mode Zaslon-M phased-array radar was introduced, with a larger 55in (1.4m) diameter antenna housed in a 3° downward inclined nose. Detection range has been vastly improved and is extended to 225 miles (360km).
Weapons fit was changed, the gun being deleted and the number of fuselage weapon stations increased to six by adding two centreline stations for R-37 air-to-air missiles, which can be fired in salvo and then seek out different targets, in addition to the side-mounted R-37s or R-33s. There are also four new underwing pylons for R-77 AAMs. An R-37 was first successfully launched from a MiG-31 M in October 1993.
The first prototype, produced by the conversion of a MiG-31 B, was lost on August 9, 1991, but was followed by another five prototypes. At least one had cylindrical wingtip ECM/ECCM (electronic countermeasures/electronic counter-countermeasures) jammer pods with upper and lower fins. Maximum take-off weight was raised to 114,6401b (52,000kg), with increased thrust D-30F6M engines to compensate. Development of the advanced MiG-31 M seems to have come to a stop due to funding cuts and it has not been ordered into production.
MiG-31 S: The designation is applied to a projected commercial variant for launching small satellites. It would carry the Fakel OKB Micron missile capable of delivering a 2201b (100kg) payload into a 124-mile (200km) orbit. It could also launch the Aerospace Rally System rocket-powered suborbital glider for astronaut training, atmospheric research or space tourism.
As Russia's most capable air defence interceptor, the MiG-31 remains a powerful threat deterrent for the Russian (and Kazakhstan) Air Force. It has evolved into a highly-developed, advanced aircraft and, as the Russians want to keep their Foxhounds in service until at least 2010, further improved upgrades can be expected in the near future. Whatever the case, these important machines will still be flying for many more years to come.