{"id":133340,"date":"2002-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002"},"modified":"2019-02-13T06:29:38","modified_gmt":"2019-02-13T00:59:38","slug":"union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 04\/12\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\nTAX CASE (REVISION PETITION) NO.111 OF 1998\n\n\nUnion of India, rep.by\nthe Deputy Commissioner\nCommercial Taxes,\nGovernment of Union\nTerritory of Pondicherry\nPondicherry.                                            ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s.Chemfab Alkalis Limited\nGnananda Place, Kalapet,\nPondicherry.                                            ... Respondent\n\n\n        Prayer:  Revision Petition presented to this Court to revise the order\nof the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, dated 5.11.1992  and  passed\nin T.A.No.1 of 1992.  for the assessment year 1988-89.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.T.Murugesan,\n                Govt.  Pleader,\n                Pondicherry.\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.K.J.Chandran\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  above  tax  case  revision  is  filed  under  Section  42  of the
\nPondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as “the PGST
\nAct”.) by the revenue i.e., the Union  of  India  represented  by  the  Deputy
\nCommissioner of Commercial taxes, Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry
\nagainst  the  order  of  the  Sales-tax  Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry dated
\n5.11.1992 made in Tax Appeal No.1 of 1992 on the following questions of law\n<\/p>\n
        1.  Whether the respondent, who is manufacturing  liquid  Chlorine  in
\nanother  factory  taken  on  lease  is  entitled  to  the benefit of exemption
\npermissible as per the Government’s notification  in  G.O.Ms.No.15\/74\/Fin.(CT)
\ndated 25th June, 1974 of the Finance Department, Pondicherry?  and\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Whether  the  respondent, which is manufacturing “”Brine”” (using
\n“salt” and other chemicals) a new product having a  distinct  name,  character
\nand  use  is entitled to claim the benefit of tax exemption provided to “salt”
\nin entry No.10 of Schedule III of the PGST Act, 1967?”\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The respondent is an assessee  in  the  books  of  commercial  Tax
\nOfficer  (IAC),  Pondicherry  and  was an industrial undertaking manufacturing
\nCaustic Soda, Chlorine gas, Hydro Chloric acid (100 percent) and Calcium Hydro
\nchlorite under licence issued by the Government of  India,  New  Delhi.    The
\nIndustry has commenced production in their factory at Kalapet with effect from
\n2.7.1985.   For  the assessment year 1988-89, the respondent have reported the
\ntotal and taxable turnover of Rs.95 ,70,369-85ps and  Rs.71,118-76ps  claiming
\nexemption on  a  turnover  of  Rs.94,99,251-09ps  in  their return filed.  The
\nrespondent claimed exemption of sales turnover of liquid chlorine in a sum  of
\nRs.1,20,029\/-.   This  exemption  has  been  claimed under the notification in
\nG.O.Ms.No.15 dated 25.6.1974  issued  by  the  Government  of  Pondicherry  in
\nexercise of  the  power  under Section 19 of the PGST Act, 1967.  According to
\nthe assessee, the said notification exempts the tax payable under the said Act
\non the sales turnover of goods manufactured by  the  small  scale  industries,
\nwhich  went into production on or after 6th November, 1 969 and all Industries
\nother than small scale industries which went into production on or  after  1st
\nApril, 1971 as certified by the Director of Industries, Pondicherry located in
\nthe Union  territory  and  registered with the Government of Pondicherry.  The
\nsaid exemption in respect of the goods manufactured  in  the  said  industries
\nshall  be  effective  and  valid  for  a period of five years from the date of
\ncommencement of production.  The exemption so claimed by the assessee has been
\nnegatived by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the liquid chlorine  was
\nmanufactured  by the assessee in a plant taken on lease from 1 6th April, 1987
\nfrom M\/s.Lichlor.  Hence, the liquid chlorine manufactured  by  the  assessee,
\nrespondent  from a manufacturing unit owned by other person is not entitled to
\nthe benefit under the notification.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  In respect of the sales turnover of “Brine” in a sum of  Rs.3,88,8
\n63-89ps,  a raw material for manufacture of caustic soda, the assessee claimed
\nexemption under entry 10 of the third schedule.  The  third  schedule  to  the
\nPondicherry  General  Sales  Tax Act enumerated goods, which are exempted from
\ntax.  Entry No.10 of the third schedule provides for sale of “salt”.    Hence,
\nthe Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption on the sales turnover of
\n“Brine”  on  the  ground  that  ” salt” and “Brine” are commercially different
\ncommodities.  The specific gravity of “Brine” in liquid form and the “salt” in
\ncrystal form are different.  “Brine” form the basic solution or  raw  material
\nfor  manufacture  of Caustic Soda and hence the exemption granted from levy of
\ntax to “salt” under Entry 10 of the third  schedule  is  not  available  to  ”
\nBrine”.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   That  order  was  taken  on  appeal  by  the  assessee before the
\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner, Pondicherry, who by his order  dated  9.10.1
\n990 confirmed  the  finding  of  the Assessing Officer on both the points.  On
\nfurther  appeal,  the  Sales  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal,  by  its  order  dated
\n5.11.1992, allowed the appeal by reversing the order of the lower authorities.
\nThe  correctness  of the said order is now questioned in the tax case revision
\nby framing the above said two questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Mr.T.Murugesan,  learned  Government  Pleader  appearing  for  the
\npetitioner  has  submitted  that the Tribunal went wrong in granting exemption
\nunder Gazette notification in G.O.Ms.No.15\/74\/Fin.(CT), dated 25.6.1974 to the
\npetitioner in respect of the sales turnover of liquid chlorine inasmuch as the
\nsame is manufactured by the petitioner from the unit taken on lease  from  the
\nthird p  arties.    The  very  purpose  of  granting exemption is only for the
\nIndustrial development.  The respondent being not the owner  of  the  unit  in
\nwhich the liquid chlorine was manufactured, such goods are not entitled to the
\nbenefit under the notification.  He further contended that there is no finding
\narrived  at  by  the Tribunal in order to grant the relief of tax exemption in
\nrespect of the sales turnover of “Brine”.  It is his contention that both  the
\nassessing  authority  as  well  as  the first appellate authority have clearly
\ngiven a finding to the effect that “Brine” is manufactured  by  purifying  the
\n“salt”  and  diluted  with  water  in  a particular proportion and in order to
\nmaintain the liquid form, chemical is also added and the “Brine” by itself  is
\na new  product  manufactured  out of “salt”.  Even in common parlance, “Brine”
\ncould not be considered as a ” salt”.   No  ordinary  prudent  man  would  buy
\n“Brine”  for  “salt”  since “Brine” is a mixture of water and “salt” with some
\nchemicals.  When such a clear finding has been  recorded  by  the  authorities
\nbelow,  the Tribunal without giving any reason, whatsoever, to differ from the
\nlower authorities, has just jumped to the conclusion without  any  basis  that
\nthe  exemption  in  respect  of  the  total turnover of the sale of “Brine” is
\navailable as is available to “salt” as per entry No.10 of the  third  schedule
\nto the PGST Act.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   On the other hand, Mr.K.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for
\nthe respondent has contended that the Assessing Officer as well as  the  first
\nAppellate   authority   have  committed  serious  error  in  interpreting  the
\nGovernment notification in G.O.Ms.No.15\/74\/Fin.(CT) dated 2  5.6.1974  to  the
\neffect  that the benefit of the notification is available only to the persons,
\nwho own the Industries.  There is nothing in the notification, which prohibits
\nthe benefit to the  person,  who  manufactured  the  goods  in  an  Industrial
\nundertaking owned  by  others.    The  interpretation  so  arrived  at  by the
\nsales-tax Appellate Tribunal is very much in consonance with the terms of  the
\nnotification and as such no exception could be taken to the finding arrived at
\nby the Tribunal that the respondent, who has manufactured liquid chlorine from
\nthe leasehold  industry  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of notification.  Mr.
\nChandran further contended that  the  reasoning  given  by  the  Tribunal  for
\narriving at the above conclusion would equally apply for reversing the finding
\nof  the  lower  authorities  in  respect  of  exemption  claimed for the sales
\nturnover of “Brine” under entry No.10 of the third Schedule to the PGST Act.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  We heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either  side  and
\nperused the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   In  order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of either
\nparties, and in order to resolve the dispute, we find it apposite to refer the
\nnotification with which reliance was  placed  by  both  the  parties  claiming
\nexemption by the assessee and rejecting the same by the Department:
\n“GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY
\nFINANCE DEPARTMENT
\n(G.O.Ms.No.15\/74\/Fin.(CT), dated 25th June, 1974)
\nNOTIFICATION
\n        In  exercise  of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 19
\nof the Pondicherry  General  Sales  Tax  Act,  1967  and  in  supersession  of
\nG.O.Ms.No.6\/74\/Fin.   (CT),  dated  1st April, 1974 of the Finance Department,
\nthe Lieutenant-Governor, Pondicherry, being satisfied that it is necessary  so
\nto  do in public interest, is pleased to exempt the tax payable under the said
\nAct on the turnover from the sales of  goods  manufactured  by  the  following
\nindustries  located in this Union territory and registered with the Government
\nof Pondicherry namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)Small scale industries which went into production on or after 6th  November
\n1969; and
\n(2)All industries other than small scale industries which went into production
\non or after 1st April, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
as certified by the Director of Industries, Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  exemption in respect of the above said industries shall be effective
\nand valid for a period  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  commencement  of
\nproduction.\n<\/p>\n
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)<\/p>\n
R.BADRINATH,
\nSecretary to Government.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Section  19 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act empowers the
\nGovernment to exempt or reduce the rate of tax payable under the  Act  on  the
\nsale  or purchase of any specified goods or class of goods at all points or at
\na specified point or points in the series of sales by successive dealers.  The
\nexemption or reduction in rate of tax may also be granted  in  regard  to  the
\nwhole  or  any  part  of  the turnover of any specified class of persons or in
\nrespect of any specified class of sale or purchase.    Such  an  exemption  or
\nreduction  of  rate of tax may be extended to the whole of the Union territory
\nor to any specified  area  or  areas  therein  and  may  be  subject  to  such
\nrestrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification.  Invoking
\nthe  power,  the  Government  of Pondicherry has issued the above notification
\nexempting the tax payable under the Act on the  turnover  from  the  sales  of
\ngoods manufactured by small scale industries, which went into production on or
\nafter 6th November, 1969 and all industries other than small scale industries,
\nwhich  went  into  production  on or after 1st April, 1971 as certified by the
\nDirector of Industries, Pondicherry.  Such exemption as per  the  notification
\nwould  be  effective  and  valid  for  a period of five years from the date of
\ncommencement of the production.  There is no dispute about the  power  of  the
\nGovernment for issuance of such an exemption notification having regard to the
\nlanguage employed.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   On  a careful reading of the notification, with reference to the
\nlanguage employed therein, it is clear that the Government on being  satisfied
\nand  in  public  interest was pleased to exempt the tax payable under the PGST
\nAct on the turnover from  the  sale  of  goods  manufactured  by  small  scale
\nindustries,  which went into production on or after 6th November, 1969 and all
\nother industries other than small scale industries which went into  production
\non  or  after  1st  April,  1974  as  certified  by  the Director, Industries,
\nPondicherry, which are located within the union territory of Pondicherry.   It
\nis evident  from  the G.O.  that exemption from payment of tax is given on the
\nsale of goods manufactured by the above said  category  of  industries  for  a
\nperiod of  five  years  from  the  date  of  commencement  of production.  The
\nrequirement as per the notification is that the goods must have been  produced
\neither  by  the small scale industries, which went into production on or after
\n6th November, 1969 or any other industries other than small scale  industries,
\nwhich  went  into  production  on  or  after 1st April, 1974, as certified the
\nDirector of Industries, Pondicherry.  The industries must  be  located  within
\nthe Union  territory  of  Pondicherry.    If  the  above said requirements are
\nfulfilled, the goods manufactured from such industries are exempted  from  tax
\nfor  a  period of five years from the date on which they went into production.
\nThere is no stipulation that in order to avail the  benefit  of  exemption  as
\ngranted  by  the  notification,  the goods must be manufactured from the above
\nsaid class of Industry owned by the  assessee.    In  order  to  give  certain
\nreliefs  to  the  classes  of  industries as stated in the notification, which
\nstarted their production on or after the date above stated, the Government has
\nexempted  the  goods  manufactured  from  the  industries  from  the  levy  of
\nsales-tax.   The  exemption  could  only be regarded to the goods manufactured
\nfrom the above said category of industries.  It is not granted with regard
\nto the person who owns such industries.  The notification no way prohibits the
\nmanufacture of goods by a person from leasehold industries nor it is  confined
\nto the industries owned by him.  Hence, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal
\nin respect of exemption claimed by the assessee, in our view, is in accordance
\nwith the notification.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In respect of the turnover claimed exemption under entry No.10 of
\nthe third Schedule of the PGST Act on the ground that the sale of  “Brine”  is
\nexempted  under  the said entry has been rejected by the Assessing Officer and
\nconfirmed by the first appellate authority on the ground that entry  No.10  of
\nthe  third  schedule  exempted  only  “salt”  from  payment of tax and not the
\n“brine”.  For recording such a finding, the Assessing Officer as well  as  the
\nAppellate Authority have given reasons that the “Brine” for which exemption is
\nclaimed by the respondent is not a product as enumerated under entry 10 of the
\nthird schedule.  What was enumerated was only “salt” and not “Brine”.  “Brine”
\nand “salt”  are  two  different  commercial  commodities.    “salt” is a white
\ncrystal substance, which gives sea water in its characteristic  taste.    They
\nalso  recorded  a  finding  that  “Brine”  was  manufactured  by purifying and
\ndiluting “salt”  with  water  and  certain  chemicals  and  it  could  not  be
\nconsidered as  “salt”  under  entry  10  of  the  third  Schedule.  But on the
\ncontrary, the Tribunal, though extracted the grounds taken by the  revenue  as
\nwell  as  the  assessee  and  also recorded to the decisions relied on by both
\nsides in an elaborate fashion , without considering or discussing  the  points
\nraised  and  without  discussing  how  the  decision  cited  on either side is
\napplicable to the facts  of  the  present  case,  has  simply  jumped  to  the
\nconclusion by saying that for all the reasons, it is found that the conclusion
\narrived  at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejecting the exemption in
\nrespect of the total turnover on the sale of “Brine” is different from  “salt”
\nwithin the meaning of entry No.10 of the third schedule of Pondicherry General
\nsales Tax  Act  is  unjustified  and  it  is  not maintainable under law.  The
\nreference in the order of the Tribunal ‘for all the reasons’ as  we  find  it,
\nrefers  to  the reasons for the availability of exemption under the Government
\nOrders, and we have carefully scanned the order of the Tribunal, but  we  find
\nthat the Tribunal has not given any reason for its conclusion that the “Brine”
\nand  “salt”  are the same commodity, though the conclusion was prefaced by the
\nexpression, ‘for all the reasons’.  We are of  the  view  that  the  Appellate
\nTribunal,  as  a  final fact finding authority, should consider the arguments,
\npros and cons, and arrive at a conclusion on the basis of its reasons, and  if
\nwithout  reasons,  the  Tribunal  comes  to  the  conclusion, it will become a
\ndifficult task for this Court  to  test  the  correctness  of  the  conclusion
\narrived at  by the Tribunal.  There is absolutely no discussion on the grounds
\ntaken by either of the parties and the application of the decision  relied  on
\nby them  to  the  facts  of  the  case.   Hence, we are of the view that it is
\nappropriate to remit that part of the turnover to the Appellate Tribunal so as
\nto record a finding as to whether a “Brine” manufactured by the assessee would
\ncome within the entry 10 of the third schedule of PGST  Act  after  discussing
\nthe  contentions  raised on behalf of either parties and applying the decision
\ncited by them.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  For the fore-going reasons, we  are  disposing  the  revision  as
\nabove  stated  by deciding the first question of law in favour of the assessee
\nand against the revenue.  In respect  of  the  second  question  of  law,  the
\nconclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the matter is
\nremitted  back  to  the  Appellate  Tribunal  with a direction to consider the
\ncontentions raised by the parties and also apply the decision  cited  by  them
\nand  record  a  clear  finding  as  to whether the “Brine” manufactured by the
\nrespondent would encompass within the entry 10 of the third  schedule  to  the
\nAct, which is enumerated as a “salt”.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:  Yes
\nusk
\nTo\n<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary,
\nSales-tax Appellate Tribunal,
\nPondicherry,\n<\/p>\n
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
\nCommercial Taxes,
\nGovernment of Union Territory
\nof Pondicherry,
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner,
\n(CT), Pondicherry,\n<\/p>\n
4.The Commercial Tax Officer (IAC)
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04\/12\/2002 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN TAX CASE (REVISION PETITION) NO.111 OF 1998 Union of India, rep.by the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Government of Union Territory […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-13T00:59:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T00:59:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2755,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T00:59:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-13T00:59:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T00:59:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002"},"wordCount":2755,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002","name":"Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T00:59:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-chemfab-alkalis-limited-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs M\/S.Chemfab Alkalis Limited on 4 December, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133340","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}