Electricity-duty exemption for captive power plants cannot be curtailed by importing a separate once-only incentive restriction.

An industrial policy granting electricity-duty exemption for captive power generation for ten years from commercial production was held to apply on its own terms, without importing a separate "only once" restriction from another incentive scheme. The policy distinction between electricity-duty exemption and captive power generating subsidy was treated as material, and the captive power plant was not confined to a single-unit limitation absent clear language. The later extension of the follow-up notification and the certificate of commercial production supported entitlement, while objections based on concealment and expansion were rejected. The revisional orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh assessment giving effect to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption from electricity duty for its 30 MW captive power generation plant under Clause 15.2.2 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 despite the initial limitation in the follow-up notification and the Revenue's objection that the benefit was available only once or only to one captive power plant.

Analysis: Clause 15.2.2 promised exemption from electricity duty for ten years from commercial production for captive power generation, and the policy showed a clear intent to encourage establishment of such plants to meet industrial power needs. Clause 29.2, read with Clause 29.4, dealt with a different fiscal incentive, namely captive power generating subsidy, and its "only once" restriction could not be read into the separate exemption under Clause 15.2.2. The distinction between an industrial unit and a captive power generation plant was also material, and the policy did not support the view that exemption was confined to only one CPP. The subsequent extension of the follow-up notification up to 31.03.2011 and the certificate of commercial production supported the petitioner's entitlement. The objections based on alleged concealment and on the expansion clause were rejected as unsustainable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to exemption from electricity duty in respect of the 30 MW captive power generation plant, and the denial of the benefit was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh assessment giving effect to the exemption for the 30 MW captive power generation plant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an industrial policy expressly grants electricity-duty exemption for captive power generation for a fixed period from commercial production, the benefit cannot be curtailed by reading into it a "once only" restriction applicable to a different incentive or by treating the captive power plant as merely an expansion of the industrial unit absent clear policy language to that effect.

---