ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the respondent-Board. 2. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioner Industrial Unit is entitled to the benefits of Industrial Policy 1995 in the matter of exemption from payment of AMG Charges for a period of five years. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : The petitioner setup an industry of cement manufacturing Unit. It applied to the Department of Industries for grant of Industrial License under the Small Scale Industries (SSI Sector). Petitioner also applied for electric connection of 100 KVA and the Electrical Executive Engineer, Giridih accorded sanction vide letter-dated 14.1.2000 for the supply of electricity. After completed all the requirements and formalities including execution of agreement electric connection was energized on 6.12.2000. Petitioner said to have started commercial production with effect from 18.1.2000. In June 2001, petitioner was served with a bill of AMG charges for the period 2000-01. Petitioner challenged those bills by filing writ petition being WPC No. 2946 of 2001, which was disposed of on 27.1.2003 by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before respondent No. 2, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Hazaribagh stating inter alia that under Clause 9.6 of 1995 Industrial Policy, petitioner Unit is entitled to exemption from payment of AMG Charges for five years. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer by order dated 21.3.2005 disposed of the representation and held that petitioner is not entitled to exemption from payment of AMG Charges on the ground that in terms of provisions laid down in the Boards Letter No. 652 dated 11.10.1996 the benefit was available only to those Units which came into production in between 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000. The General Manager also held that electric connection was given in the Unit only on 6.12.2000 and as per the certificate issued by the General Manager, petitioner- Unit came in production only on 18.1.2001. Petitioner also challenged the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of exemption from payment of AMG Charges. 4. The erstwhile State of Bihar came out with an Industrial Policy in the year 1995 known as 1995 Industrial Policy. Petitioner also challenged the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of exemption from payment of AMG Charges. 4. The erstwhile State of Bihar came out with an Industrial Policy in the year 1995 known as 1995 Industrial Policy. By the said Industrial Policy the State of Bihar desired to give impetus to the Industrial Units within certain specified time period by issuing notification. By Clause 9.6 of the Industrial Policy the Government desired to give exemption besides other from payment of AMG Charges for new industrial Unites having connected load of 500 KVA. The State of Bihar vide notification dated 3.9.1996 issued under Section 78-A of the Electric (Supply) Act decided to exempt from levy of Minimum Guarantee Charges for a period of five years to those industrial unit which came into production between 1.9.1995 to 31.8.2000. 5. The stand of the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board is that as per the letter issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board being letter No. 652 dated 11.10.1996 remission/exemption was allowed only to those Industrial Unit which came into production from 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000. The relevant portion of letter dated 11.10.1996 reads as under : "Dinank 1.4.1993 se 31.8.2000 ke bich utpadan me aanewali avm parivasit vistaar/diversification karne walon odyogik upbhokta Jinka connected vidyut load 500 (five hundered) KVA tak ho ko vidyut sambandh tithi se paanch varshon tak ke liye nimntam guarantee se chhut dya jayega." "It transpires from the above that production of those Industrial unit which have come in force in between the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000 and whose connected load are upto 500 KVA will only be entitled to get remission/exemption in AMG charges for the five years from the date of connection." 6. It is contended by the respondents that this fact was duly communicated to the petitioner as back as in 2001 vide letter of the Electrical Superintending Engineer dated 8.8.2001. 7. The erstwhile State of Bihar in order to create environment for optimal utilization of States agro climatic, mineral and human resources and to accelerate the industrial growth time to time came with an industrial policy giving exemption to the newly established industrial Units subject to certain terms and condition also by issuing notification. One of those industrial policies of the Government is of 1995 Policy. One of those industrial policies of the Government is of 1995 Policy. Those benefits like exemption from payment of Sales Tax, AMG Charges, rebate for non-supply of power to industrial undertakings decided to be given for a limited period by issuing notification through the concerned department of the Government. The Government is therefore entitled to grant exemption to the industry having regard to Industry Police of the Government. The Government is also free to modify its Industrial Policy and grant, withdrawal or modify fiscal benefits from time to time by issuing notification. It is, therefore, clear that merely because of issuance of Industrial Policy such benefits cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the Industrial Unit unless the Government grant benefits in accordance with the Industrial Policy by issuing notification. In this con- nection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Industries and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., . 8. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and Anr. v. Jagannath Cotton Company and Anr., also the Supreme Court considered the question of benefit claiming under Orissa Industrial Policy Resolution 1986 and 1989. Their Lordships observed : "Apart from the above consideration, we must also see what are the provisions, if any, in the Orissa Sales Tax Act providing exemption from sales tax in the case of new industries and whether they are consistent with the provisions of IPR or are they different. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the IPR by itself is enough to provide the exemption from the sales tax. But where the provisions of the Sales Tax Act are also amended providing for exemption, then the Court has to see whether they are the same as the IPR or are then different and if different, what is the effect of such difference. It is therefore, necessary to ascertain the relevant provisions in the Sales Tax Act, rules and notifications, if any, issued thereunder before expressing a final opinion in the matter. 9. In the instant case, as noticed above, by the Industrial Policy, 1995 issued by the State of Bihar, the Government decided to give some benefits to the Industrial Units for a period of five years. 9. In the instant case, as noticed above, by the Industrial Policy, 1995 issued by the State of Bihar, the Government decided to give some benefits to the Industrial Units for a period of five years. Admittedly, the Bihar State Electricity Board vide Circular dated 8.5.2001 clarified that remission/exemption in AMG Charges which was granted to those Industrial Units whose production commenced in between 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000 shall not continue after 31.8.2000. Even before that Bihar State Electricity Board vide letter No. 652 dated 11.10.1996 had clearly notified that only those Industrial Units which came into production in between 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000 having connected load of 500 KVA will be entitled to get exemption in AMG Charges for a period of five years from the date of connection. Admittedly, petitioner Unit was supplied electric connection only on 6.12.2000 and as per the petitioners own case the production started from 18.1.2001. It is, therefore, clear that petitioner-Unit did not start production before 31.8.2000. In my opinion, therefore, petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right the benefit of exemption from payment of AMG Charges merely because the Unit was established in 2000. 10. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the notification referred to herein above and also having regard to the fact that the Unit came into production only from 18.1.2001, petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the Industrial Policy, 1995. 11. For, the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.