JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:—Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioners challenge refusal on the part of the respondent No. 2 to include the capital costs of manufacturing compressors in total costs of the refrigerator project for the purpose of granting incentives under 1979 Package Scheme of incentives, hereinafter called as "the said Scheme". 3. The petitioner No. 1 is a limited company carrying on business inter alia as the manufacturers of refrigerators. The respondent No. 2 is a limited company wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra and inter alia engaged in implementing projects drawn up by the Government for industrialization of backward areas in the State of Maharashtra including the said Scheme. 4. The petitioners approached the Government of India for industrial licence to enable the petitioners to manufacture one lakh refrigerators per annum while the petitioners were already manufacturer of 11000 domestic refrigerators per annum at its factory at Thane and the Government of India under letter dated 3rd June, 1982 issued a letter of intent permitting the petitioners to manufacture one lakh refrigerators per annum on the conditions which were applicable to the manufacturing unit established in a notified area and two of the conditions were regarding prohibition against import of compressors and non-importation of technology for manufacture of such compressors. Under letter dated 26th November, 1982 the petitioners applied for eligibility under Part I of the said Scheme, disclosing therein the cost of the project in relation to plan and machinery to be Rs. 388.28 lakhs. However, under letter dated 28th September, 1984, the petitioners sought to clarify that cost of toolings was Rs. 22.84 lakhs and the same was required to be added to the costs of the project in order to enable the petitioners to avail fully the incentives under the said Scheme. The petitioners commenced production at their factory at Warora, from 1st February, 1985. By the letter No. FINC(I)/A-3516, dated 23rd November, 1984, the petitioners contended that though the estimated cost of their refrigerator project was indicated at Rs. 836 lakhs, the respondents had considered the same at only Rs. 615 lakhs as qualifying for the incentives by deducting the balance of Rs. By the letter No. FINC(I)/A-3516, dated 23rd November, 1984, the petitioners contended that though the estimated cost of their refrigerator project was indicated at Rs. 836 lakhs, the respondents had considered the same at only Rs. 615 lakhs as qualifying for the incentives by deducting the balance of Rs. 221 lakhs and, therefore, requested for inclusion of the capital expenditure incurred for the compressor manufacturing unit in the cost of the project to enable the petitioners to avail fully the incentive benefits for the purpose of exemption from sales tax. The respondent No. 2, however, under the eligibility certificate dated 8th May, 1985 for sale tax incentive under the Part I of the said Scheme notified that the petitioners could avail the sale tax exemption on purchase of inputs in terms of sales of refrigerator for nine years from 13th May, 1985 to 12th May, 1994 or until the petitioners exhausted the ceiling of the sale tax exemption limit computed at the rate of 90% of the gross value of the fixed capital investment. The respondents did not take into account the investment made by the petitioners for the manufacture of compressors while considering the costs of the project. Under letter dated 30th May, 1985, the petitioners, therefore, requested the respondent No. 2 that the investment made for the manufacture of compressors should be taken into account in the costs of the project and the same was estimated at Rs. 5 crores as against Rs. 4.6 crores as was earlier indicated, as the production of the compressors was an inbuilt part of the refrigerator project. The respondent No. 2 by their letter dated 5th November, 1985 declined to include the costs of the compressor project and/or to amend the eligibility certificate accordingly. Addenda to the eligibility certificate was issued on 20th January, 1987 showing the revised capital cost of the project at Rs. 695.01 lakh in place of Rs. 615.31 lakhs, as was shown earlier but the cost of the project relating to the manufacture of compressor was not included. The petitioners by letter dated 2nd February, 1987 again requested for inclusion of the costs of compressor manufacturing unit in the capital costs of the project. 695.01 lakh in place of Rs. 615.31 lakhs, as was shown earlier but the cost of the project relating to the manufacture of compressor was not included. The petitioners by letter dated 2nd February, 1987 again requested for inclusion of the costs of compressor manufacturing unit in the capital costs of the project. The same request was rejected by the respondent No. 2 under their letter dated 24th February, 1987 on the ground that the details regarding the manufacturing unit of compressor were furnished and the request for inclusion was made for the first time under letter dated 10th May, 1984, although the application for eligibility certificate was required to be made under the Scheme before the expiry of the period of 31st March, 1983. The petitioners requested for review of the decision as regards the costs of the project under their letter dated 16th April, 1987 by addressing a letter to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra pursuant to which the respondent No. 1, by its letter dated 9th February, 1988 requested the respondent No. 2 to reconsider the matter for appropriate decision in accordance with law. The respondent No. 2, after reconsidering the matter, rejected the request of the petitioners for inclusion of the investment of the compressor manufacturing unit in the project cost of the refrigerator project and thereby to amend the eligibility certificate. Hence, the present petition. 5. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the period for complying the final step under the said Scheme was extended from 31st March, 1983 to 31st March, 1985. The request for inclusion of the cost of the compressor manufacturing project in the cost of the entire project of the petitioners was made on 28th September, 1984, i.e. before the expiry of the extended period of the Scheme and hence merely because the said cost was not disclosed in the original application for eligibility, it could not be a justifiable reason to reject the incentive benefits to the petitioners in relation to the said investment. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the letter of intent issued by the Government of India clearly prohibited the petitioners from importing the compressors as well as from importing technology for the manufacture of the compressors and it was only in August, 1984 that the petitioners were able to get the said condition modified permitting the petitioners to manufacture the compressors with foreign collaboration. Being so, on account of uncertainty about the amount of investment in those circumstances, the petitioners were not able to disclose the cost of the compressor manufacturing unit in the original application and this fact was clearly disclosed to the respondents. In the circumstances, it is case of the petitioners that the decision by the respondents rejecting the request of the petitioners for inclusion of the costs of compressor manufacturing unit in the eligibility certificate to enable the petitioners to avail exemption from payment of sale tax, is totally arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the said Scheme and therefore needs to be set aside, giving further direction to include the said costs in the cost of the project and to amend the eligibility certificate accordingly. 6. Undisputedly, the said Scheme was sanctioned under the resolution dated 5th January, 1980 which was to remain in operation from 1st August, 1979 to 31st March, 1983. Clause 2.1 of the Scheme provides that the eligibility certificate under Part I of the said Scheme would be issued on the basis of the totality of the documentary evidence produced by the eligible unit in that behalf and it would be issued to be effective from the date of commencement of the commercial production. 7. In terms of Clause 2.3 of the said Scheme effective steps for the purpose of said Scheme would comprise of initial effective steps as well as the final effective steps. 7. In terms of Clause 2.3 of the said Scheme effective steps for the purpose of said Scheme would comprise of initial effective steps as well as the final effective steps. The initial effective steps includes effective possession and control over the land in which the unit is to be established, Constitution of firm and obtaining of provisional SSI registration or letter of intent from the Central Government and the permission of the State Government for setting up of the unit, whereas the final effective steps include Industrial Licence or DGTD registration, capital goods, clearance, finance for the project, requirement of availability at site at least 10% of the total fixed assets, investment of at least 25% of the capital cost of the project. 8. In terms of Clause 4.4 of the said Scheme, the application for eligibility under the said Scheme was required to be filed by the eligible unit after having taken the initial effective steps and it was specifically provided that any application filed earlier thereto could not have been entertained by the Implementing Agency. The application was required to be accompanied by the documentary evidence in support of the initial effective steps taken by the unit. 9. Clause 4.5 of the said Scheme, which is very relevant for the decision in the matter reads thus: "4.5 For claiming eligibility under the 1979 Scheme, the eligible unit should not only file the application for eligibility but should also complete all the effective steps. (i.e. both the initial and the final effective steps) on or before 31st March, 1983." 10. Equally important is Clause 4.6 of the Scheme and the same reads thus: "4.6 No right or claim for any incentives under this Scheme shall be deemed to have been conferred by the Schemes merely by virtue of the fact that the unit has fulfilled on its part the conditions of the Scheme. The incentives under the Scheme cannot be claimed unless the letter of intent/eligibility certificate has been issued under the Schemes by the Implementing Agency concerned and the unit has compiled with the stipulations/conditions of the letter of intent/eligibility certificate." 11. The incentives under the Scheme cannot be claimed unless the letter of intent/eligibility certificate has been issued under the Schemes by the Implementing Agency concerned and the unit has compiled with the stipulations/conditions of the letter of intent/eligibility certificate." 11. The provisions of the said Scheme, therefore, apparently disclose that the units in order to be eligible to claim the incentives under the said Schemes were required to be obtained the eligibility certificate and the application for obtaining the eligibility certificate was required to be filed on or before the 31st March, 1983. At the same time, it was necessary to complete all effective steps, that is to say, initial as well as final effective steps on or before the said date of 31st March, 1983. Simultaneously, the unit excepting to claim benefit under the Scheme was required to produce the documentary evidence in support of the claim of eligibility. 12. Undisputed facts in the case disclose that when the petitioners filed an application for obtaining eligibility certificate under the said Scheme did not disclose the investment cost pertaining to the compressor manufacturing unit. Admittedly the investment cost regarding manufacturing of refrigerators was submitted excluding the information relating to the cost of manufacture of compressors. Undoubtedly, the industrial licence obtained by the petitioners from the Central Government specifically excluded permission for importation for compressors as well as for manufacturing of compressors with the help of imported technology. The letter dated 3rd June, 1982 by the under Secretary to the Government of India addressed to the petitioners and copy of which is placed on record as Exhibit C is very clear in that regard. It is also undisputed fact that the petitioners did not have necessary permission for manufacture of compressors either with the use of foreign technology or even with the use of foreign import technology, and, therefore, the petitioners could not have included the cost of investment regarding compressors except being totally indigenous product in that regard at the time of filing the application for eligibility under the said Scheme. 13. 13. The contention of the petitioners, however, is that the period prescribed in relation to the said Scheme was extended under Resolution dated 29th May, 1984 upto 31st March, 1985, and the petitioners had filed application for amendment of the eligibility certificate so as to include the costs of products of the manufacture of compressors, on 22nd February, 1985 during the extended period of the Scheme, and, therefore, the respondents could not have denied the said request for amendment of the eligibility certificate or availability of the incentives under the said Schemes to the petitioners in relation to the cost of the manufacturing compressors. 14. The resolution dated 29th May, 1984 in relation to the extension of period of the Scheme provides as under: "Government is pleased to direct that the date for completion of final effective steps, stipulated in para 4.5 of Government Resolution, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, No. IDL-7079/(2043)/IND-8, dated the 5th January, 1980, and extended upto 31st March, 1984, under Government Resolution, Industries, Energy and Labour Department No. IDL-1082/(4096)/IND-8, dated the 31st March, 1983, shall be extended further upto 31st March, 1985. However, the benefits of this extension should be available only to the following two categories of units, whose applications for eligibility under the 1979 Scheme were pending with the Implementing Agencies on 31st March, 1983: (i) The units which have completed all initial effective steps and at least one of the final effective steps, before 31st March, 1983, indicated in para 4.5 of Government Resolution, Industries, Energy and Labour Department No. IDL 7079/(2043)/IND-8, dated the 5th January, 1980; (ii) The units which have completed all initial effective steps before 31st March, 1983 and which are not otherwise be covered under the 1983 Scheme." 15. Plain reading of the said Resolution dated 29th May, 1984 discloses that the extension granted has to be read in Clause 4.5 of the said Scheme. Obviously, therefore, it discloses that the extension which has been granted for the purpose for taking all effective steps within the meaning of the said expression under the said Scheme till 31st March, 1985. Plain reading of the said Resolution dated 29th May, 1984 discloses that the extension granted has to be read in Clause 4.5 of the said Scheme. Obviously, therefore, it discloses that the extension which has been granted for the purpose for taking all effective steps within the meaning of the said expression under the said Scheme till 31st March, 1985. However, the later portion of the said Resolution discloses that the said extension was subject to conditions that it was available only to the two categories of the units specified therein and not to all, that is to say, firstly to those units who had completed all initial effective steps and at least one of the final effective steps before 31st March, 1983 as indicated in para 4.5 of the resolution dated 5th January, 1980 and, secondly, that the units had completed all initial effective steps before the 31st March, 1983 which were not otherwise covered under the 1983 Scheme. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners having not completed initial effective steps in relation to the project pertaining to the manufacture of compressors prior to 31st March, 1983, they are not entitled to claim incentives under the said Scheme in relation to the said part of the project relating to the manufacture of refrigerators. 16. As already stated above, the industrial licence which was granted to the petitioners on 3rd June, 1982 specifically excluded the permission for manufacture of compressors with the imported technology as also to import compressors. It is also undisputed fact that the petitioners were able to obtain industrial licence permitting them to import technology required for the first time on 31st July, 1984, consequent to the deletion of the contention imposed in the letter of intent dated 3rd June, 1982. Apparently, therefore, the permission for manufacture of compressors itself was obtained much after the last date i.e. 31st March, 1983, before which the initial effective steps were required to be taken in relation to the manufacture of compressors. Apparently, therefore, the permission for manufacture of compressors itself was obtained much after the last date i.e. 31st March, 1983, before which the initial effective steps were required to be taken in relation to the manufacture of compressors. On their own admission therefore, the petitioners have clearly disclosed that they had not taken any initial effective steps in relation to the manufacture of compressors prior to the 31st March, 1983, and therefore, apparently in terms of the said Scheme and in particular the Clause 4.5 thereof read with the said resolution dated 29th March (sic May), 1984, the petitioners could not have claimed amendment to the eligibility certificate or could not have sought to claim incentives under the said Scheme to the project pertaining to the manufacture of compressors, and therefore, the rejection of the request for inclusion of the said cost relating to manufacture of compressors in the eligibility certificate was perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction. 17. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----