https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189223 Review Application No. 81 of 2006 was allowed by the High Court due to an unauthorized submission by the Assistant Solicitor General. The Court recalled the previous order and directed a fresh hearing. The interpretation of a government policy for excise duty exemption was scrutinized, emphasizing the need for clarity in defining "substantial expansion." The Court declined to rectify a notification regarding an industrial unit's location, citing limitations on judicial intervention in policy matters. The Court highlighted the Central Government's authority to amend notifications and dismissed claims of discrimination. The matter was closed with a directive for the Central Government to update the petitioner within six weeks. en-us Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:40:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189223 Review Application No. 81 of 2006 was allowed by the High Court due to an unauthorized submission by the Assistant Solicitor General. The Court recalled the previous order and directed a fresh hearing. The interpretation of a government policy for excise duty exemption was scrutinized, emphasizing the need for clarity in defining "substantial expansion." The Court declined to rectify a notification regarding an industrial unit's location, citing limitations on judicial intervention in policy matters. The Court highlighted the Central Government's authority to amend notifications and dismissed claims of discrimination. The matter was closed with a directive for the Central Government to update the petitioner within six weeks. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189223