JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Whether oil cake is a specie of finished goods within the meaning of the said expression as appearing in the Transport Subsidy Scheme of 1971, so as to entitle the appellant-writ petitioner to grant of subsidy under the scheme, is the moot question that arises for consideration in the present appeal.
2. The appellant-writ petitioner-firm is a small scale industrial unit registered with the competent authority of the State Government. In terms of the registration certificate granted to the appellant-firm, oil cake is one of the items of manufacture by the appellant unit. The pleaded case of the appellant is that the process of manufacture of oil cake consists of crushing of oil seeds as a result of which mustard oil is produced and the residue or the remainder constitutes a distinct and specified commodity which is known in the market as oil cake. According to the appellant-firm, oil cake is known and understood in trade and commercial circles as a distinct and definite commodity having its own market and use. According to the appellant-firm, under the scheme in force, earlier transport subsidy was granted and received by it in respect of the oil cake manufactured in the unit in question. However, at a particular point of time, the Central Government took the stand that oil cake is not a finished good but is a by product and, therefore, the said item will not be entitled to grant of transport subsidy under the scheme. The aforesaid decision of the Central Government is contained in a letter/order dated 14.7.1997 which though not on record has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, questioning the legitimacy of the above decision, the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the appellant-firm,
3. The claim made by the appellant-firm that oil cake is a distinct commercial item, known in the market as such and having a definite market of its own was hotly contested by the respondents in the writ petition who had taken the stand that the oil cake is a left over item and is a bye-product and, therefore, would not come within the meaning of the expression ‘finished goods’ under the scheme in force.
4. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition after identifying the issue arising for determination elaborately considered the same by reference to several decided cases to hold that ‘finished goods’ within the meaning of the said expression as appearing in the subsidy scheme necessarily involves a process of manufacture of a commodity from certain raw materials. The learned Single Judge, with reference to the several decided cases, came to the conclusion that a process of manufacture necessarily involves production of a distinct item different from the raw materials used in such manufacture and further that such distinct item must have its own recognition in trade and have its own market. After recording the above view, the learned Single Judge elaborately considered the case projected by the appellant in the pleadings made in the writ petition. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge recorded the finding that the appellant-firm had not furnished any material or data to explain the nature of the manufacturing process, the expertise and technology involved and the composition of the said product at the end of the manufacturing process. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that no particulars were furnished by the appellant-writ petitioner with regard to the marketability of the product in question. In the absence of such relevant material the learned Single Judge closed the writ petition by recording the opinion that oil cake was not a finished good within the meaning of the said expression as appearing in the subsidy scheme and, therefore, the stand taken by the Central Government that transport subsidy will not be payable in respect of the said item, i.e., oil cake was fully justified. Aggrieved, this writ appeal has been filed.
5. The Transport Subsidy Scheme framed by the Central Government under which subsidy has been claimed by the appellant-firm is one of the incentives provided to industries, inter alia, in the North-eastern Region. Under the said scheme, raw materials brought into the different industrial units within the North-eastern Region and finished goods going out of the Region to different markets in the country are entitled to receive subsidy which, roughly stated, is equivalent to the Railway freight from the point of manufacture to a particular point in transit, i.e., Siliguri. The expression ‘raw materials’ and ‘finished goods’ on which subsidy is payable under the scheme have been set out in the scheme itself. The aforesaid two definitions being relevant may be usefully extracted hereunder:
Raw material means any raw material actually required and used by an industrial unit in its manufacturing programme as approved by the Government of India and/or by the Government of State/Union Territory in which the industrial unit is located.
‘Finished goods’ means the goods actually produced by an industrial unit in accordance with the manufacturing programme approved by the Government of India and/or the Government of the State/Union Territory in which the industrial unit is located.
6. In the present case as the court is primarily concerned with the entitlement to subsidy in respect of ‘finished goods’ an attempt must be made to understand the precise meaning of the said expression as defined in the scheme. The expression ‘finished goods’ denote goods produced, in an industrial unit by a process of manufacture. In the several decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge, details of which need not burden the present order, it has been consistently held by the Apex Court that manufacture of any particular good must give rise to a distinct and different item different from the raw materials used and such goods must be known in the market by its separate identity. That apart, such goods must be capable of having a market of its own. It is in the above context that the court will have to determine as to whether oil cake manufactured by the appellant-firm can legitimately come within the meaning of the expression ‘finished goods’ as appearing under the scheme.
7. In the present case the process of manufacture deployed in the appellant’s unit as a result of which oil cake is produced has already been indicated in the earlier part of this order. Mustard seeds are crushed to extract oil and what is left with a little residue of oil is the oil cake. This, in essence, is the manufacturing process deployed in the appellant’s unit. The said process undoubtedly had the approval of the concerned authority of the State Government which had granted the registration certificate to the appellant-firm. However, what has to be decided by the court is whether oil cake is a distinct commodity, known in the market as such and having a market of its own so as to come within the expression of ‘finished goods’ as contemplated under the scheme. It is the appellant who is claiming transport subsidy in respect of oil cake manufactured by it. If transport subsidy is being claimed, naturally, the court can presume that oil cake as a finished item is being sent by the appellant-firm to other parts of the country where there is a market for it. The court can also presume that oil cake manufactured in the appellant’s unit has a distinct use in trade and industry. It is the appellant who claims to be in the business of manufacture and sale of oil cake. If that be so, it was incumbent on the appellant to place before the court necessary materials to show as to how the said item, as a finished product, is known in the market; what is the use of that item as a finished product and further what are the markets or potential markets for sale and purchase of oil cake. None of the aforesaid facts have been pleaded either in the writ petition or even in the appeal, notwithstanding the fact that a supplementary affidavit has been filed in the appeal laying before the court certain other facts. The transport subsidy claimed by the appellant is on the basis that oil cake is a finished product and, therefore, is covered under the scheme. The oil cake produced in the appellant’s unit is undoubtedly a product but as to how it is a finished product and known in the market as such is a question of fact which the appellant-firm undoubtedly was duty-bound to place before the court to enable the court to satisfy that the said product, indeed, is a finished product. The said facts which are vital to a just determination of the issue are conspicuously absent in the pleadings made.
8. The appellant relies on the certificate of registration granted by the competent authority wherein oil cake is mentioned as one of the products of manufacture. Merely because a certificate is granted specifying oil cake as one of the produce in the manufacture of which the appellant-firm is engaged, in the considered view of the court, will not be sufficient to bring the said product within the meaning of the expression ‘finished goods’. Reliance has also been placed on the fact that oil cake is one of the items specified in the Schedule to the then Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and the Assam Value Added Tax, 2003 as a taxable item. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to bring home the point that when the statute has recognized oil cake as a taxable item, the court must understand that the said item has a market of its own. We have duly considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and on such consideration we are unable to agree with the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Merely because oil cake has been made a taxable item under a specific statute, in the considered view of the court, would not be sufficient to enable the court to come to the conclusion that the said product is a ‘finished good’ within the meaning of the said expression under the scheme.
9. For all the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the opinion recorded by the learned Single Judge that oil cake is not a finished product under the scheme has been so recorded correctly and no interference with the said view would be justified in the present appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs.