TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the minutes dated 08.02.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned minutes'), insofar as it relates to apportionment of unutilised quota of Raw Pet Coke (hereafter 'RPC') amongst various applicants including the petitioner. 2. Petitioner no.1 (hereafter 'the petitioner') is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of Clacined Pet Coke (hereafter 'CPC'). The petitioner requires RPC as a feed stock for manufacturing CPC. 3. The import of CPC has now been restricted to 1.4 million metric tonne in terms of the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in various applications filed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: W.P.(C) 13029/1985. The relevant extract of the said order is set out below:- "2. Use of anode grade pet coke in CPC manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... curiae that the views expressed by the CPCB are also acceptable to EPCA. Consequently, raw pet coke (domestic and imported) can be used as a feedstock for producing calcined pet coke. We make it clear that the imported raw pet coke for this purpose cannot exceed 1.4 MT per annum in total. Applications stand disposed of." 4. It is not disputed that prior to the aforesaid order, RPC could be freely imported by manufacturers in India. Since the restrictions were imposed in October 2018, the respondents have proportionately restricted the import of RPC at 0.7 million MT for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019. 5. The minutes of the meeting held on 08.02.2019 (impugned minutes) includes a tabular statement indicating the mann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....661 6. It is apparent from the above that 73,516.661 metric tonnes of RPC remained unutilised on account of certain manufacturers deciding to not import the said material. 7. In view of the further headroom available, the respondents decided to allocate the surrendered quantity to the three manufacturers (the petitioner, Sanvira Industries Ltd. and Petro Carbon and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.) whose demand for allocation could not be fully satisfied. 8. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved with the manner in which the excess surrendered quantity has been allocated. The relevant extract of the impugned minutes, indicating the manner in which additional quantity has been allocated to the three manufacturers whose demands were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capacity (production capacity) of a manufacturing unit, as that would mean that there would still be sufficient unutilised capacity available with the manufacturers. 10. The aforesaid contention is merited. 11. It is apparent that the manner in which the distribution of the excess quantity has been distributed, is manifestly irrational. This is so because the respondents have allocated quantities for making up the shortfall with reference to the production capacity of the applicants and not their requirements to meet their production capacity. Admittedly, the production capacity of the manufacturers of CPC is significantly lower than the input (RPC) required to exhaust the said capacity. 12. It is also apparent that the manner in w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this view, it would be apposite if the shortfall is determined on the basis of the quantity applied for and the quantity allocated and not the production capacity of each applicant. A tabular statement indicating the shortfall in respect of the three applicants is as under:- In MTs S. No. Name of the Firm Quantity applied for Import Quantity Allocated on 27.12.2018 Shortfall 1. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd. 3,52,145 2,53,338.65 98806.35 2. Sanvira Industries Ltd. 1,83,746 99,154.07 84591.93 3. Petro Carbon and Chemicals (P) Ltd. 1,40,616 46,475.49 94140.51 16. In the present case, there are only three applicants who had applied for distribution of the utilised quan....