Industrial Policy exemption limited to Market fee; Rural Development fee could not be included without express wording.

The Industrial Policy, 2003 exemption from Market fee did not extend to Rural Development fee because the two levies arise under separate statutes, serve different objects, and are credited to different funds. The policy expressly granted exemption only from Market fee, and the Court declined to read an unstated exemption into it merely because the collection machinery overlapped. Later departmental communications did not create an automatic extension of the exemption. The exemption therefore covered Market fee alone, not Rural Development fee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption from payment of Market fee under Clause 11.4.2(i) of the Industrial Policy, 2003 also extended to Rural Development fee.

Analysis: Market fee and Rural Development fee are levied under separate statutes serving different objects and are collected for different funds and purposes. The policy expressly referred to exemption from Market fee, but did not specifically grant exemption from Rural Development fee. The Court held that similarity in collection machinery or overlap in subject matter does not justify reading an unexpressed exemption into the policy. The later departmental communications also did not assist the respondent in claiming an automatic extension of exemption to Rural Development fee.

Conclusion: The exemption under the Industrial Policy, 2003 covered only Market fee and not Rural Development fee.

---