5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, as to whether the oxygen gas supplied by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 is used as “raw material” in the manufacturing process of steel, so as to entitle respondent No.1 to pay concessional rate of tax on the same under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. This may be noted that only in a case where oxygen gas is used as “raw material”, the same would be taxed at the rate of 2% of the sales tax, which otherwise is chargeable @ 3% on the sale thereof.

5.1 One another question which may fell for consideration would be, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and faced with a detailed inspection report pertaining to inspection and enquiry of respondent No.2 by a six members expert committee, upon which reliance was placed by the assessing officer holding that oxygen gas is a ‘refining agent’, confirmed up to the revisional authority, was it open for the High Court to upset the concurrent findings recorded by all the three authorities below, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution?

7. As per the settled position of law, the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sitting as an appellate court against the findings recorded on appreciation of facts and the evidence on record. The High Court ought to have appreciated that there was a detailed inspection report by a six members committee who after detailed enquiry and inspection and considering the process of manufacture of steel specifically came to the conclusion that the work of oxygen is only of a ‘refining agent’ and its main function is to reduce the carbon content as per the requirement. The said findings accepted by the assessing officer and confirmed up to the Joint Commissioner – Revisional Authority were not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court lacks the expertise on deciding the disputed questions and more particularly the technical aspect which could have been left to the Committee consisting of experts.

8. Even otherwise on merits also, in light of the findings recorded by the committee, accepted by the assessing officer and confirmed up to the Joint Commissioner – Revisional Authority, it is required to be considered, whether the oxygen gas used in the manufacture of processing of goods, the same can be said to be a “raw material” for the manufacture of the end product – steel.

10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and the findings by the committee consisting of six expert members recorded in the detailed inspection report and when it has been found that the oxygen gas is used as a ‘refining agent’ and its main function is to reduce the carbon content as per the requirement, the oxygen gas cannot be said to be a “raw material” used in the manufacture of the end product – steel. Under the circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the concessional rate of tax @ 2% treating the same as “raw material” in the manufacture of the end product and are liable to pay tax @ 3% on the sale thereof. The High Court has seriously erred in holding contrary and by interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by all the three authorities below. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.