Concessional power tariff claim failed where commercial production before the cut-off date was not proved and concurrent findings stood.

Entitlement to concessional power tariff depended on proof that commercial production had begun on or before 31.12.1996, and the appellant failed to establish that condition with reliable evidence. Invoices, tax returns, stock registers and the financial corporation's certificate were found insufficient, while the delayed power connection, inability to use the diesel generator without statutory permission, and the wider documentary record did not show continuous production before the cut-off date. The concurrent factual findings of the courts below were not shown to be perverse, so interference under Article 136 was unwarranted. The tariff concession claim therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had commenced commercial production on or before 31.12.1996 so as to qualify for concessional power tariff, and whether the concurrent findings rejecting that claim warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The claim to concession depended on proof that commercial production had begun within the relevant period. The materials relied upon by the appellant, including invoices, tax returns, stock registers, and the certificate of the financial corporation, were found insufficient and not conclusive. The power connection itself was not available until much later, the diesel generator could not be used without the requisite statutory permission, and the documentary record did not establish continuous commercial production before the cut-off date. The factual findings of both courts below were concurrent, and no perversity was shown to justify interference in exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove commencement of commercial production by the cut-off date, and the concurrent adverse findings on fact were not liable to be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the demand at the concessional rate failed, and the appellant was not entitled to the claimed tariff benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings will not be interfered with under Article 136 unless shown to be perverse, and entitlement to a fiscal concession must be established by reliable evidence of compliance with the stipulated conditions.

---