Honble MADAN, J.–The aforesaid special appeals preferred under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 arise out of impugned orders dated 21.5.1985 in SBCWP No. 949/75, 3.3.1982 in SBCWP No. 1832/73, 3.3.1982 in SBCWP No. 1451/73, 5.3.1982 in SBCWP No. 2186/73 and 21.5.1975 in SBCWP No. 949/75, respectively. Since the questions of law raised before us in the aforesaid appeals are common and arise out of the challenge to the State Government Notification issued in pursuance of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty Act and Rules). Notifications and Circulars issued in pursuance thereof as well as the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act 1962 (Rajasthan Act No. 12 of 1962) published in Rajasthan Gazette Part-IV-A Extraordinary dated 23.5.1962 thereinafter referred to as "the Act & Rules") and the competence of the State Govt. in imposition of levy on the industrial units functioning in the State of Rajasthan regarding reduction of duty on the energy consumed by the industries i.e. Cold Storages Ice Factories engaged in manufacturing, production, processing as well as the repairs of the goods etc.. We deem it appropriate to deal with and decide all the aforesaid appeals by this single common judgment. (2). The questions of law which have arisen for consideration before us in the aforesaid appeals are- (i) whether cold storage is an industry engaged in processing of goods and as such entitled to exemption from the electricity duty or entitled to reduction/remission of the same? (ii) whether the industrial units are entitled to claim 10% rebate or at such revised concessional tariff inaccordance with relevant rules as amended from time to time as is allowable to new industrial units by the State Government? (iii) whether cold storage is not a seasonal factory though ice factory is and as such entitled to rebate from imposition of levy of duty? (iii) whether cold storage is not a seasonal factory though ice factory is and as such entitled to rebate from imposition of levy of duty? (iv) whether the learned Single Judge has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the reasons indicated by the Rajasthan Electricity Board for short "the Board" were misconceived and untenable so as to exclude the cold storages from the definition of seasonal factory in the revised tariff imposed in pursuance of the notification dated 28.5.1974 which was published on the same day in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) and as such the cold storages are covered within the definition of seasonal factory and whether the appellants are entitled to the benefits as available to a `seasonal factory? (3). The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties, briefly stated, are that on 26.3.1962 the State Govt. issued a Notification whereby it had fixed electricity tariff at the rate of 3 np per unit as the rate at which the electricity duty shall be computed to be chargeable from the cold storages and Ice factory etc. installed in State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, on 26.5.1962 non-petitioner No. 2, viz, the Commercial Taxes Officer A Circle Jaipur issued an another notification in pursuance of Rajasthan Electricity Bill, 1962, clause (3) sub clause (5) read with Section 3 of the Rajasthan Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1958 whereby, the State Government opined that it is expedient in public interest to exempt from imposition of tax the consumption of energy by- (i) consumer in an industry involved in manufacture, production, processing or repair of goods, and : (ii) as regards the mining activity operation as defined under Indian Mines Act, 1923 but the benefit of said exemption was not applicable to the consumption of energy by the consumers for commercial and/or residential purposes. Thereafter, on 2.5.1965 the State Govt. issued an another notification whereby the State Govt. Thereafter, on 2.5.1965 the State Govt. issued an another notification whereby the State Govt. reduced the levy of electricity duty from 5 np to 1 np per unit as on 1.11.1965 when no change was made in the rate of duty computed by the Board provided- (A) remit-electricity consumed (i) in electric chemical energy (ii) in electric furnace of electric thermal energy; (B) remission on energy consumed by the Municipal Boards, Panchayat Samities authorized for public street lightning w.e.f. 1.11.1964 : (C) reduction of duty on energy consumed in industrial units except (a) in manufacturing, production, processing and repair of goods from 4 np to 1 np per unit during the relevant period in question for the period in dispute. (4). During the course of hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that during the period 1.11.1965 to 8.3.1968 no change was effected and rather as on 8.3.1968 a Notification was issued by the State Govt., whereby the relief of remission of electricity duty consumed by the industrial units in manufacturing, production and processing of goods or any installed capacity commissioned by any industry was granted till 13.3.1974 and on the contrary a remission certificate was issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer giving the benefit of remission from 4 np per unit as earlier charged by the Board to 1 np per unit from inception to February, l974. The controversy arose between the Industrial Units as represented by the learned counsel for the appellants in March, 1974 when arrear bills indicating the difference payable by the consumers from 4 np per unit to 3 np. per unit was directed to be charged by the Board from the consumers and the arrears were . claimed for the period in dispute i.e. April, 1974 to March, 1975 at the rate of 5 np per unit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the recovery vitiated by the Board, the appellants earlier represented their case before the Board on 8.6.1974 for issuance of remission certificate and failing to illicit any response from the Board the appellants moved this Court finally by way of the writ petitions which were decided by this Court on different dates as aforesaid which have given rise to the filing of the aforesaid special appeals which are now being finally decided by this judgment. (5). (5). The controversy which was involved in the writ petitions preferred before the learned Single Judge was that the non-petitioners be restrained from recovering electricity duty at the rate of 5 np per unit and no recovery should be made from the appellants Units in pursuance of the impugned bills issued on 8.5.1973 and on different dates and the appellants also sought, issuance of a declaration from this Court that since they are undoubtedly rendering service to public at large hence they are entitled to emission at the rate of 1 np per unit in pursuance of earlier Notification dated 1.11.1965 and are thus entitled to refund of excess amount recovered by the Board. It was further prayed that revised tariff for supply of electricity introduced by Notification dated 28.5.1974 be quashed and set-aside and the excess amount be refunded. (6). The respondents contested the writ petitions on behalf of the Board and thereafter an application for amendment of the writ petitions was submitted by the petitioners/appellants before this Court on 19.1.1984 which was duly contested by the Board. The said amendment application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.1.1985 and thereafter amended writ petition was filed to which reply has also been filed by the Board alongwith the rejoinder of the appellants. The appellant in Special Appeal No. 13/86 is a proprietary firm carrying on business of cold storage and ice factory in Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Sikar Road, Jaipur. The appellant had applied for temporary electric connection in the year 1972 which was granted in December, 1972 while permanent electric connection, was granted in February, 1973. The appellants unit was initially charged electricity duty at the rate of 1 np per unit in pursuance of the Notification dated 1.11.1965 and thereafter for the first time in March, 1974 duty was revised and charged at the rate of 5 np per unit and demand arrear bills were also sent to appellants and also to other affected units. The appellants unit was initially charged electricity duty at the rate of 1 np per unit in pursuance of the Notification dated 1.11.1965 and thereafter for the first time in March, 1974 duty was revised and charged at the rate of 5 np per unit and demand arrear bills were also sent to appellants and also to other affected units. During the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that while in April, 1975 duty was charged at the rate of 1 np per unit but again in May, 1975 it stood revised to 5 np per unit and also the bills for recovery of arrears w.e.f. April, 1975 onwards were also sent to the consumer units which were not paid by the respondents and rather challenged earlier before the learned single Judges and now in aforesaid Appeals before this court. (7). The main contention which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of hearing is that since cold storages and ice factories are industries involved in commercial activity of processing and preservation of goods and not in manufacturer of any goods, as much they are entitled to benefit of exemption at the rate of 10% or at such rate as admissible under the Rules to other industrial units. It has further been contended that while the cold storage is not a seasonal factory, though ice factory is, and hence both cannot be treated at par with each other in the matter of levy of electricity duty by the State. They have further sought benefit of one time exemption at par with new industrial units for a minimum period of 7 years from the date of commissioning of the said units in view of the Notification dated 8.3.1968. They have further contended that they had applied to the respondent No. 4 vide Exh.No. 5 dated 8.6.1974 for the issuance of remission certificate and on other relevant dates but their request was turned down by the respondents in so far as it related to cold storage, on the ground that the cold storage is not an industry and, therefore, concessional rate of electricity duty was not applicable in their case. The appellants had represented their case to the Board on 10.1.1975 and on other relevant dates for restoration of separate electric meters for ice factory and cold storage respectively and having failed to elicit any positive and favourable response from the Board, they had finally filed the above noted writ petitions giving rise to the present Appeals. (8). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellants placed reliance upon the following decisions - Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (1), M/s. Paras Enterprises vs. Karnataka Electricity Board (2) and Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (3). (9). In Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (supra) the question of law which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether appellant Company was involved in the process of processing being cold storage storing seasonal goods and whether it could be termed as an industrial company within the ambit of Sec. 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973 as well as Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was held by the Apex Court that the company running a cold storage is not an industrial company within the ambit of the Finance Act of 1973 and further held, as under- ``Processing is a term of wide amplitude and has various aspects and meanings. In common parlance `processing is understood as an action which brings forth some change or alteration of the goods or material which is subjected to the act of processing. The dictionary meaning of the term is not very different from this meaning in one sense while various other meanings of wider amplitude are also available. Processing involves bringing into existence a different substance from what the material was at the commencement of the process. (10). It was further held by the Apex Court, as under- ``In a cold storage, vegetables, fruits and several other articles which require preservation by refrigeration are stored. While as a result of long storage, scientific examination might indicate loss of moisture content that is not sufficient for holding that the stored articles have undergone a process within the meaning of Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973. The three- Judge Bench decision must be taken to have overruled the view of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. Commr. The three- Judge Bench decision must be taken to have overruled the view of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. Commr. of Income-tax, Kanpur vs. Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (1977 Tax LR NOC 49) (Supra) and that of the Calcutta High Court in Commr. of Income-tax vs. Radha Nagar Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (1980 Tax LR 1191) (supra) (11). In the matter of Paras Enterprises vs. Karnataka Electricity Board (supra), the appellants had claimed the benefit of exemption of tariff as it was covered by the tariff schedule by the Karnataka Electricity Board. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the writ petitions against which they had come up in appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court while affirming the impugned decision of the High Court held that since the appellant was using the cold storage for commercial purposes and as such, the Electricity Board was justified in issuing the impugned demand under the tariff schedule which was under challenge in appeal and hence the impugned demand was held well in order since cold storage is undoubtedly involved in a commercial activity and as such liable to pay the Bills pertaining to consumption of energy for running of cold storage. (12). In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 48 and 49 of the Act of 1948 as well as the provisions of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962 (Act No. 12 of 1962) which provide as under- Section "48. Power to licensee to carry out arrangements under this Act. Where under any provision of this Act the Board is authorised or required to enter into arrangements with any licensee for any purpose, then notwithstanding any thing contained in any law or in any licence memorandum of association or other instrument regulating the constitution or powers of the licensee, it shall be lawful for the licensee to enter into and carry out any such arrangements. 49 Provision for the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees. 49 Provision for the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of regulations, if any, made in this behalf, the Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame uniform tariffs." Sec. 3 Electricity duty on energy consumed. There shall be levied for, and paid to, the State Government on the energy consumed by a consumer, or by a person other than a supplier generating energy for his own use or consumption, a duty (hereinafter referred to as the ``electricity duty)" computed at such rate may be fixed by the State Government from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette: Provided that (1) In respect of consumption of energy under a temporary connection obtained by a consumer from the supplier for a period not exceeding such number of days, for such purpose and exceeding such units as may be prescribed, the duty may be computed at a rate as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time by a notification in the Official Gazette; (1A) The total of the duty so levied and the net rate charged per unit shall not exceed the rate as may be notified by the State Government from time to time by a notification in a Official Gazette." (13). From the perusal of the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge which are under challenge before us, it is apparent that the respondents in Special Appeal No. 13/86 had applied for remission in the year 1974 which was rejected in December, 1974 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1975 and as regards the first objection of the Board that the appellants are guilty of latches/undue delay in preferring the writ petitions before this Court, we are of the view that this objection is not sustainable. As regards the second contention as to whether the cold storage is an industry involved in processing of goods and seasonal factory, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in arriving at the conclusion that cold storage is an industry for the purpose of benefit of Notification dated 1.11.1965 and other Notifications issued subsequent thereto as well as the Notification dated 8.3.1968 and hence are entitled to remission of electricity duty from 5 np per unit to 3 np per unit for the period in dispute and hence they are not liable to pay duty at the rate of 5 np per unit as well as electricity duty at the rate of 4 np per unit as claimed by the Board being in contravention of the later and subsequent Notifications issued by the State Government including Notification dated 8.3.1968 whereby the State Government had opined that it is not expedient in public interest to charge the electricity duty for the said units for the disputed period and benefit of remission of electricity duty was extended as regards the energy consumed by the industrial units involved in the manufacture, production or processing of goods in Rajasthan for the benefit of new industrial units provided the consumers claiming such- (a) industries which were commissioned between the date of issuance of the Notifications dated 8.3.1968 and 31.3.1974; (b) remission certificates were issued to the said units by the Commercial Taxes Officer concerned in this behalf in compliance with the requirements of Rule 12 of the Rules, 1962. Consequently, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of remission from levy of electricity duty only to the extent of benefit of 10 per cent rebate which is permissible to new industrial units in accordance with the Notification dated 8.3.1968 and in subsequent Notification issued thereafter by the State Government in confirmation of the said earlier Notification and hence it is not open to the Appellant Board to resile from the same by taking contrary view of the matter. (14). (14). During the course of hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-Board that the cold storages wherein commodities/seasonal goods are stored by the consumers so as to make available the benefit of the said goods to the consumers in different seasons is and industry engaged in processing of goods within the ambit of Notification dated 1.11.1965 as well as other impugned Notifications issued from time to time which are under challenge before this Court and hence the respondents are not entitled to claim any benefit of exemption from the levy of tariff on their industrial units. They have further contended that Ice Factories are also involved in the process of manufacturing ice as consequent upon consumption of energy supplied by the Board and hence they are not entitled to benefit of the exemption of electricity duty, since they cannot be termed as seasonal factories since ice factories as well as cold storages continue in operation by manufacturing/processing goods stored therein as well as manufacturing of the ice which is a continuous process throughout the year and hence they are not entitled to claim benefit of exemption from the levy of duty. This benefit of remission shall remain in compliance only for a period of 7 years from the date of commissioning of industry or of the Additional installed capacity in the said unit, as the case may be. It is further directed that the aforesaid benefit of remission can be availed of only to this limited extent only by the cold storages since they are seasonal industries involved in processing of goods and not in manufacture thereof. (15). It is further directed that the benefit of aforesaid remission shall not be applicable to Ice factories which are involved in manufacture of ice in all seasons throughout. (16). (15). It is further directed that the benefit of aforesaid remission shall not be applicable to Ice factories which are involved in manufacture of ice in all seasons throughout. (16). Prima-facie, we are of the view that the appellants who are running cold storages who had applied for remission to the State Government are entitled to benefit of one time exemption and the benefit of 10 per cent rebate on tariff being small scale industries functioning in Rajasthan and benefit of 10% subsidy as admissible to new industrial units in pursuance of the Notifications dated 1.11.1965 and other Notifications issued subsequent thereto including the Notification dated 8.3.1968 and hence they are liable to pay electricity duty at such concessional rate as permissible to them by virtue of the said Notification for the period in dispute. As regards the finding of the learned Single Judge that the cold storage is an industry for the purpose of Notification dated 1.11.1965 as well as subsequent relevant Notification issued by the State Government from time to time in the order dated 21.5.1985 in SBCWP No. 949/75 as well as in other connected writ petitions giving rise to the filing of present special appeals, we are of the view that the said finding is not open to challenge and as such the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 8.3.1968 and hence liable to pay the duty at such rate as specified by the Board and thereafter the revised tariff will be chargeable after the expiry of the period of remission as specified in the Notification. We are further of the view that the order of the Board pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 25.2.1970 whereby the following concessions were allowed in tariff to various industries so as to encourage more industrial units to be set-up in Rajasthan is just and proper and the respondents are entitled to benefit of concession as available to them in accordance with the said decision of the Cabinet. (Rebate in tariff for new industries in Rajasthan) (1) For Industries having contract demand of more than 6000 KVA Rebate in Tariff 15% (2) For Industries having contract demand of more than 1200 KVA 12/1/2% (3) For Industries having contract demand of more than 125 KVA and upto 1200 KVA 10% (17). (Rebate in tariff for new industries in Rajasthan) (1) For Industries having contract demand of more than 6000 KVA Rebate in Tariff 15% (2) For Industries having contract demand of more than 1200 KVA 12/1/2% (3) For Industries having contract demand of more than 125 KVA and upto 1200 KVA 10% (17). It is clarified that the benefit of the aforesaid concession/rebate will not be applicable to those consumers who obtained power requirements from their own generation or from any other source and to not purchase their requirements of energy from the Board and its rebate shall not be allowable to such new connections which are given for commercial purposes wherein an industry is already existing. It is further clarified that the benefit of remission/rebate of 10% for industries having contract demand of more than 125 KVA but not exceeding 1200 KVA as well as other concessions as referred to above as revised from time to time shall be allowable only to the new industrial units including cold storage only by way of one time concession for the initial period of 7 years only from the date of installation of the said units in pursuance of the Notification as referred to above and thereafter regular rates shall be chargeable from the industrial units as reasonably revised from time to time by the Electricity Board. The benefits of rebate will be applicable to all such new industries including the industries which have started drawing power/energy from the Board during the period 1.3.1970 and 31.3.1974 and will be available to them till 31.3.1979 in pursuance of the decision of the State Cabinet decided in its 136th meeting held on 25.2.1970 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. (18). As a result of the above discussions, Special Appeal No. 13/86 arising out of judgment dated 21.5.1985 in Writ Petition No. 949/75, Special Appeal No. 58/83 arising out of judgment dated 3.3.1982 in Writ Petition No. 1832/73, Special Appeal No. 57/83 arising out of judgment dated 5.3.1982 in Writ Petition No. 1451/73, Special Appeal No. 105/84 arising out of judgment dated 5.3.1982 in Writ Petition No. 2186/73 and Special Appeal No. 128/86 arising out of judgment dated 21.5.1985 in Writ Petition No. 949/75 are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.