TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8A of the Rules is the primary question which arises for our consideration in this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution. 2.. M/s. Anil Pesticides Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and during the year 1994-1995 it set up an industrial unit at Village Badgodam Tehsil Kalka District Panchkula. The company is manufacturing amongst others "Monocrotophos and Dichlorvos (technical)". Since the company was a newly set up industrial unit, it claimed sales tax exemption in terms of the industrial policy of the Sate of Haryana and applied for the grant of an "eligibility certificate" under rule 28A of the Rules. This application was considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."eligibility certificate" under the Rules to enable it to claim sales tax exemption provided the items manufactured by it do not fall in Schedule III to the Rules. Entry 43 of Schedule III with which we are concerned reads as under: "43. Pesticides manufacturing and formulations." This entry in the negative list was brought in Schedule III for the first time with effect from December 16, 1996 by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1996. While adding this entry to the Schedule the State Government also added Note 2 in the Schedule which reads as under: "Note 2.-The industrial units in which investment has been made up to 25 per cent of the anticipated cost of the project and which have been included in the above l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registration under the Act wherein it had stated that it would be manufacturing "pesticides". Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the company refuted the contention of the learned State counsel and contended that the question as to whether the two items manufactured by the company were "pesticides" or "chemicals" being highly technical, the department had referred the matter to a committee of technical experts of the department who opined that the items manufactured by the company were chemicals but the department did not accept that report and referred the matter to the International Testing Centre, Panchkula which is a private testing centre. He further contended that even the appellate authority on the request of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsisting of experts with chemical background gave their opinion that the products manufactured by the company were chemicals and did not fall in the negative list. That committee further advised the department to adopt the same codification as adopted by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purpose of charging Central excise duty. The Excise Department treats these products as chemicals and levies excise duty at the rate of 18 per cent whereas the excise duty on "pesticides" is 8 per cent. The Committee did not accept this report and instead relied upon the report of its own technical expert who advised that "all pesticides are chemicals and the items mentioned are pesticides and its formulations which is clear from the projec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chnical experts must weigh with the authorities in deciding the issue. It is true that even the technical experts have given different opinions but this Court would not be justified in interfering with the finding of the appellate authority because that finding is also based on the expert opinion and there is no material before us to show that the report of the technical expert relied upon by the appellate authority was not correct. The report of the International Testing Centre, Panchkula which is a Government approved testing centre on which reliance was placed by the Committee is one opinion of the experts but there was other opinion to the contrary to which a reference has already been made. Government of India too while levying excise ....