TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (9) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, to give credit to a sum of Rs . 20,64,531.23 in the petitioner's account P.L.A. No. 29 (Sugar). 2.  W.P. No. 550 of 1977 is by Messrs Aruna Sugars Ltd, Pennadar, South Arcot district, for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records relating to the application of the petitioners dated 20-3-1976 to the second respondent, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry, relating to excise duty rebate of Rs. 11,10,828, granted under the Government of India's Notification dated 12-10-1974, for the sugar year 1974-75 and directing the second respondent to give credit for the said sum of Rs. 11,10,828, in the petitioners account P.L.A. (Sugar). 3.  W.P. No. 551 of 1977 is by the same Messrs. Aruna Sugars Ltd, for the issue of a certiorified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents relating to the Chief Accounts Officer's Order dated 21-5-1976 in C. No. IV/16/ 236/76 RF refusing the grant of excise duty rebate under the Government of India's notification dated 12-10-1974 for the sugar year 1974-75 and quashing the said order dated 21-5-1976 and directing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor's order dated 23-4-1977 and quashing those orders. 8.  W.P. No. 4513 of 1978 is by M/s. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Limited, Madras, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichirapalli, the third respondent, relating to his order dated 18-2-1978 in C.A. No. V/1/3/177 for the sugar year 1972-73 and the order dated 17-8-1978 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the second respondent, in A. No. 64/78/M.D.- C. No. V/1/11/78 and quashing those orders. 9.  W.P. No. 978 of 1979 is by M/s. New Horizon Sugar Mills Private Limited, Pondicherry, for the issue of a certiorified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records relating to the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry, the second respondent, dated 22-6-1977 in C. No. IV/16/134/76 M.P. II to the effect that excise duty rebate of Rs. 21,46,400 has been erroneously credited in the P.L.A. account of the petitioners and asking the petitioners to repay that amount, as confirmed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the third respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the sugar manufactured. Sugar is produced between the period from 1st October of one year to 30th September of the subsequent year, known as 'Sugar Year'. During certain months of the sugar year, it is not possible to produce any sugar at all or as much sugar as could be produced in the other months of the sugar year. The Government of India gave rebate in excise duty to see that during those lean months sugar is produced in sufficient quantity. The Central Government has been issuing notification from time to time from the sugar year 1970-71 granting rebate in excise duty subject to certain terms and conditions. The Indian Sugar Manufacturers' Association, New Delhi, has its branch Associations in different States. According to the petitioners, in 1971 that Association, hereinafter referred to as 'ISMA', obtained legal opinion and asked the Central Government about the correctness of that opinion in respect of the notification issued by the Central Government for granting rebate in excise duty and the Central Government replied that opinion was correct. In 1972 also, similar thing was done and the Central Government also stated that the opinion of the ISMA was correct. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken into account while computing average production of the preceding five sugar years." 15.  In the sugar year 1974-75, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 436, 550, 2467 of 1977 produced sugar in excess of the average produced in the corresponding period of the preceding five years and they applied for rebate on the basis that they are entitled to rebate at Rs. 20/- per quintal regarding free sugar and Rs. 5/- per quintal regarding levy sugar in respect of 7.5% of the excess produced and at the other rates specified in the notification for the other slabs of sugar produced in excess of the average production. Thus calculated the rebate to which the petitioners in these writ petitions will be entitled would be Rs. 53,00,335.68, Rs. 26,35,142.80 and Rs. 34,54,170.49 respectively and they applied for credit for these amounts in their P.L.A. accounts. But the Excise Authorities held that the rebate to which the petitioners will be entitled would be only Rs. 32,35,803.76, Rs. 15,24,314/- and Rs. 20,57,201.68 respectively on the basis of the interpretation on the notification put by the respondents, namely that the rebate was payable in respect of the different slabs on the basis of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in column (2) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (3) and (4) of the said Table. TABLE S.No. Description of sugar Duty of excise   Free Sale Sugar Levy Sugar (1) (2)  (3) (4) 1. Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1974, and ending with the 30th day of November, 1974, in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding five years in respect of which Rs. 60/- per quintal. Rs. 16/-per quintal. (a) the overall production of the factory for the entire sugar year does not equal the average production of the preceding five sugar years, (b) the overall production of the factory for the entire sugar year equals or excee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 1 respectively of the notification dated 4-10-1973 which reads : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in column (2) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (1) 1944), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table. TABLE S. No. Description of Sugar Duty of excise (1) (2) (3) 1. Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing from the 1st day of October, 1973 and ending with the 30th day of November, 1973. which is in excess of the quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding period in 1972. Forty rupees per quintal. 4. Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing from the 1st day of July, 1974, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1974. which is in excess of the quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding period in 1973 : Twenty rupees per quintal Provided that the exemption mentioned against serial numbers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said letter dated 19-8-1975 and to allow the supplemental claim for Rs. 2,00,308/-. Both the requests were turned down by the authorities. 24.  In W.P. No. 1625 of 1978, we are concerned with item 1 of the notification dated 12-10-1974 which also relates to the sugar produced during October and November 1974 in excess of the average production of sugar during the corresponding period of preceding five years. There was no production in the factory of the petitioners in this writ petition during October and November of the sugar years 1969-70 and 1971-72. Excise duty rebate of Rs. 12,56,672.92 was originally granted to the petitioners in this writ petition for the excess production during October and November 1974 even though there was no production of sugar during October and November in some of the preceding five years. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichirapalli, issued a notice dated 15-7-1975 to the petitioners stating that the petitioners were entitled to a lesser sum on the basis of a different interpretation of the notification and that a sum of Rs. 6,46,192.32 had been paid in excess erroneously and asking the petitioners to repay t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber and November 1972. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 16-5-1977 for recovery of the amount on the ground that it was erroneously credited and that they were not entitled to the rebate because there was no production during October and November 1971. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichirapalli, confirmed the demand by his order dated 18-2-1978 saying that the amount was liable to be recovered under Rule 10-A of the Rules. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by his order dated 17-8-1978. 28.  In W.P. No. 978 of 1979, we are concerned with item 3-A of the notification dated 4-10-1973 introduced in that notification by the amendment notification dated 20-4-1974 which relates to sugar produced during May and June 1974 in excess of 180% of the quantity of sugar produced in the corresponding period of 1973. Excise duty rebate of Rs. 21,46,400/- was granted to the petitioners by the Chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Madras, on 1-1-1975, though in the particulars produced by the petitioners along with their claim for rebate, it was clearly stated by the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2483 of 1979 which relates to the sugar produced during October and November 1973 in excess of the sugar produced during the corresponding period in 1972. Excise duty rebate of Rs. 6,00,840/- was granted to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Vellore, by his order dated 11-11-1974 by crediting the same in their P.L.A. account, even though the petitioners had stated in the particulars furnished by them along with their claim for rebate that there was no production of sugar during October and November, 1972. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Kancheepuram, demanded repayment of the entire rebate of Rs. 6,00,840/- by his letter dated 26-8-1976 on the ground that credit had been given for that amount erroneously and that the petitioners are not entitled to any rebate because there was no production of sugar during October and November 1972. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore, issued a notice dated 26-11-1976 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the demand made by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kancheepuram, should not be confirmed and confirmed the same by his order dated 4-3-1977 which was in turn confirmed on appeal by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he corresponding periods in the last season, the production might have been 'nil'. The Central Board of Excise and Customs informed the ISMA by letter No. 14/24/72-CX-1 dated 1-11-1972 that the presumption is confirmed in respect of established factories and not in respect of factories which had only a trial run during the base period. Even in the previous year in respect of the Government of India's notification dated 13-10-1971, ISMA wrote a letter dated 27-10-1971 to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, seeking a similar confirmation of the presumption that a factory which had worked during the base period i.e., 1st day of October, 1970 and ending with 30th September 1971, would be entitled to the excise duty rebate as per that notification, though it had not worked during the corresponding period in the previous year and the production during that period was 'nil'. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, informed the ISMA by letter No. F. No. 14/33/71/CX-1, dated 26-11-1971, that the presumption mentioned in ISMA's letter dated 27-10-1971 is correct. In view of these interpretations of the notifications of the previous years, viz., the noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rebate allowed on the excess production during the period 1st December 1974 to 30th September 1975 are on the different percentage mentioned in that item with reference to the average production in the corresponding period in the preceding five years and not on the percentage of the excess production itself. 35.  W.P. Nos. 551 of 1977 and 1625 of 1978 relate to item 1 of the notification dated 12-10-1974. The respondents in W.P. No. 551 of 1977 have admitted that the petitioners' claim for rebate was in respect of the excess sugar produced during October and November, 1974 and it was allowed to the extent of Rs. 4,23,800/- by credit being given for that amount on 28-1-1975 in the P.L.A. account and that the petitioners in that writ petition preferred a supplemental claim for Rs. 2,00,308/- as per item 1(b) for the notification dated 12-10-1974 on the ground that the overall production of the factory in the incentive period, namely October and November 1974, exceeded the average production of the preceding five years, and it was not allowed by the excise authorities. The respondents contend in these writ petitions that since there was no production at all in the factory of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inally the entire 47,461.26 quintals of sugar produced during the incentive months July to September 1974 was treated as excess sugar produced and excise duty rebate of Rs. 18,98,450.40 at Rs. 40/- per quintal was allowed and that since it was found that as per the proviso the factory should have produced some quantity of sugar during the period July to September 1973 and since there was no production of sugar in the petitioners' factory in the period, a notice was issued to the petitioners calling...............upon them to show cause why the said sum of Rs. 18,98,450.40 should not be repaid by the petitioners and that having regard to the proviso to the notification dated 4-10-1973, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry, passed the order dated 22-6-1977 directing the petitioners to repay the amount and the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, rightly confirmed that order by his order dated 16-1-1979 in the appeal. 39.  In W.P. 2483 of 1979 which relates to item No. 1 of the notification dated 4-10-1973 and concerns sugar produced in the factory during the period 1st October to 30th November, 1973, which is in excess of the quantity of sugar produced durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The learned Judge had to interpret the very same notification dated 12-10-1974 in those two writ petitions and he has observed thus : "A fair reading of the notification appears to show that production of excess over the average production of the previous five years entitled the manufacturer to a rebate of excise duty on the excess production at specified rates. Excess production up to 7.5% that is to say, excess production up to 7.5% of the average production of the previous five years is entitled to a rebate of Rs. 20/- per quintal in the case of free sale sugar and Rs. 5/- per quintal in the case of levy sugar. On the excess production on the next 10%, that is to say, on the next 10% of the average production of the previous five years the manufacturer is entitled to rebate at the rate of Rs. 40/- per quintal in the case of free sale sugar and Rs. 10/- per quintal in the case of levy sugar to illustrate, if the average production in the previous 5 years was 1,000 quintals and if the excess production is 175 quintals the manufacturer would be entitled to rebate of Rs. 20/- per quintal on 75 quintals and Rs. 40/- per quintal on 100 quintals." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India and a duty on salt manufactured in, or imported by land into any part of India as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule". Sugar produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production is one of the articles mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act. Therefore, excise duty is leviable on sugar produced or manufactured by the petitioners in all the writ petitions. Section 37 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying into effect the purpose of the Act. Rule 8 of the rules framed under the Act provides for the Central Government, from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette, exempting, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the notification, any excisable goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable on such goods. The various notifications with which we are concerned in these writ petitions have been issued under rule 8 (1) of the rules and, therefore, they are statutory in character. 44.  The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Udayan Chinubhai v. R.C. Bali (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2319) interpreted section 12 (2) and the explanation to section 12 of the Limitation Act which read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a factory during the period commencing from the 1st day of October, 1971, and ending with 30th day of November 1971, which is in excess of 80% of the quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding period in 1970 and at Rs. 16/- per quintal in respect of sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing from 1st day of December 1971, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1972, which is in excess of 80% of the quantity of sugar produced during the period commencing from the 1st day of December, 1970 and ending with 30th day of September 1971. Item 1 of the notification dated 28-9-1972 provides for the grant of excise duty rebate at Rs. 40/- per quintal in respect of sugar produced in a factory during the period October and November 1972 which is in excess of the quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding period in 1971. Item 1 of the notification dated 4-10-1973 provides for the grant of excise duty rebate at Rs. 40/- per quintal in respect of sugar produced in a factory during the period October and November 1973 which is in excess of the quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding period in 1972. Item 4 of the same notification provides for the gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Judge and made clear in his observation in the passage extracted above, namely :- "On the excess production on the next 10%, that is to say, on the next 10% of the average production of the previous five years, the manufacturer is entitled to rebate at the rate of Rs. 40/- per quintal in the case. of free sale sugar and Rs. 10/- per quintal in the case of levy sugar". To take an illustration, if the average production in the previous five years was 1000 quintals and the excess production in the particular year over that average production is 2000 quintals, according to the interpretation of item 2 of the notification dated 12-10-1974 adopted by Chinnappa Reddy, J. 7.5% of the average, namely 75 quintals will be entitled to rebate at Rs. 20/- per quintal in respect of free sale sugar and at Rs. 5/- per quintal in respect of levy sugar, the next 10% namely 100 quintals will be entitled to rebate at Rs. 40/- per quintal in respect of free sale sugar and Rs. 10/- per quintal in respect of levy sugar, the next 10% namely 100 quintals, will be entitled to rebate at Rs. 50/- per quintal in respect of free sale sugar and at Rs. 14/- per quintal in respect of levy sugar, the ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 35,500/- on the basis of the interpretation of that item of the notification rejected by the learned Judge. It would not have been the intention of the Government of India to grant excise duty rebate at the largest rate to be larger slab of the excess production than what would be the case if the interpretation rejected by the learned Judge is adopted. 46.  With respect to the learned Judge, I am of the opinion that it is not permissible to add any words to the notification and that the notification has to be interpreted by giving effect to the actual words used in the notification and not by adding any words thereto. In my view 'on excess production upto 7.5%', 'on excess production on the next 10%,' 'on excess production on the next 10%', 'on excess production on the next 10%' and 'on excess production beyond 37.5%' mentioned in item 2 of the notification dated 12-10-1974 would only mean one rate of rebate on the excess sugar produced over the average production of the corresponding period of preceding five years upto 7.5% of the excess, at another rate on that excess produced on the next 10% of the excess produced, at another rate on the next 10% of the excess produce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of excess sugar produced in October and November 1973 in W.P. No. 2483 of 1979. 48.  In Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural Society Ltd. v. Union of India 1979 E.L.T. J. 533 - (1978 A.W.R. 106), Chinnappa Reddy, J., had to interpret the very same notification dated 4-10-1973 with which we are concerned in W.P. Nos. 978, 1685, and 2483 of 1979, Subsequent to the date of the notification, the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, issued a trade notice dated 28-7-1976 saying that the notification was examined in detail at the highest level as to how the rebate is to be allowed for the production in a particular slab of the incentive period in cases where there was no production in the corresponding base period, that after a thorough examination and consideration it was decided by the Government of India that the correct interpretation of the notification is that the incentive rebate would not be available in a case where there was nil production in the corresponding period of the base year and that accordingly the exemption admissible under serial Nos. 1 to 4 of the notification shall not be admissible in cases where there was a production during the corresponding base perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t period in the year 1972-73, it must be said that the production during the relevant period was nil and the excess sugar produced in the year 1973-74 should be calculated on that basis. The interpretation of the Central Government would also lead to absurd results. It would mean that if a manufacturer produced even one ounce of sugar during the relevant period in 1972-1973 he would be entitled to rebate, but not if he produced nil sugar. The proviso to the notification, in my opinion makes matters clear. It says that the exemption mentioned against serial Nos. 1 to 4 shall not be admissible to a factory which did not work during the base period............ In the face of the proviso I find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the Central Government." 49.  An argument similar to the one advanced before Chinnappa Reddy, J., was advanced before me by Mr. K.N. Balasubramanian who stated that it was only when some sugar is produced during the relevant period, it could be stated that in the year in question the sugar produced was in excess and if no sugar was produced during the corresponding period in the previous year or years, the notification was in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at by dividing the total production of 42,360 quintals by 2, and treating 21.180 quintals as the average production. On that basis, the Assistant Collector held that the factory would be eligible for a rebate of only Rs. 1,12,250/- on the excess production of 2620 quintals and accordingly instructed the factory to revise its claim for rebate. Gokulakrishnan, J., in his judgment has observed thus :- "No doubt the petitioner had not produced sugar in the months of October-November 1969, October-November 1970 and October-November 1971. Since as per clause (1) of the notification it is mentioned the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding five sugar years, I am of the view that the average should be calculated in this case by dividing the total production by five, even though there was no production during the period October and November in certain of the years. This is the intention of the notification and that is why two different types of rebate have been provided one for the mills which started production in 1967-68 or before and the other for the mills which started production after 1967-68" In that view, the learned Judge held that the interpretat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vit filed in support of the writ petition that the grant of rebate mentioned in the letter dated 22-1-1973 of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Karur, was on the correct interpretation of the notification dated 28-9-1972 and as per the clarification made by the Secretary, Government of India, that even if there was no production in the previous year, the factory would be entitled to excise duty rebate at the notified rate on the entire production during October and November 1972 and that having interpreted the notification correctly, it will not be open to the respondents to give a different interpretation now and direct the petitioners to pay back the amounts on the basis that the petitioners are not entitled to any excise duty rebate at all. It is further stated that the first respondent is estopped from revising its own order and interpretation having regard to the fact that the petitioners have acted in pursuance of the notification in finalising their accounts which could not be reopened after the lapse of so many years. 52.  In W.P. No. 1016 of 1978, the petitioners have stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that based on the earlier ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners have acted to their detriment in pursuance of such orders in finalising their accounts which cannot be reopened now after the lapse of so many years. 55.  In W.P. No. 4513 of 1978 it has been contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the excise duty rebate granted by the Superintendent of Central Excise by his letter dated 31-1-1973 was on a correct ^ interpretation of the notification dated 28-9-1972 and as per the clarification made by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) New Delhi in the letter No. 14/24/72-CX. 1 dated 1-11-1972 to the effect that even if production during the base period was 'nil' in the previous years, the factory will be entitled to excise duty rebate at the rate notified on the entire production during the months of October and November, 1972, that having interpreted their own notification correctly, it is not open to the respondents to give a different interpretation now and direct the petitioners to repay the rebate as if the petitioners arc not entitled thereto and that the first respondent is estopped from revising the notification and interpretation ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no estoppel against law and that any clarification of the notifications made by any of the officers of the Government is not binding on the respondents who are statutory bodies. 60.  Mr. K.N. Balasubramanian submitted that the notifications have been issued under rule 8 of the Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by section 37 of the Act and are therefore statutory, that there is no alteration of the provisions of any of the notifications, but only there is interpretation of the notifications, and that any clarification by Government Officers is not binding on the Government, and there is no estoppel against law. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Amrit Banaspati Co., Ltd., (A.I.R. 1977 Punjab & Haryana 268). The learned Judges have held on the facts and m the circumstances, of that case that there was no equitable estoppel operating against the Government entitling the Company to refund of sales tax for three reasons, firstly because the rights of the Company, if any, came into existence on 16-6-1969 by which time the revised policy of the Government came into effect, secondly bec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that no definite promise was made by the Government by the several notifications with which we are concerned in these writ petitions that excise duty rebate would be given to the manufacturers of sugar during the lean months of the year at the specified rates on the excess production. 61.  Mr. Balasubramanian relied also upon the decision in Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural Society Ltd. v. Union of India 1979 E.L.T. (J 533) (1978 A.W,R.. 196) rendered by Chinnappa Reddy, J., who is a party to the aforesaid decision in State of Punjab v, Amrit Banaspati Ltd., (A.I. R. 1977 Punjab and Haryana 268). In that judgment, Chinnappa Reddy, J., has observed : - "It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the exemption that was granted by the Central Excise Authorities the petitioners had paid bonus, dividends, taxes etc., and have so altered their position that the Government of India should be equitably estopped from putting a different interpretation on the notification at a later stage. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Anglo-Afghan Agencies. (A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 718). There is no force in this sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mport certificate in excess .of the true value of the goods exported, to reduce the import certificate. Their Lordships have observed in their judgment :- "The orders which the Central Government may issue in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act may be executive or legislative.................. It cannot be assumed merely because the Imports Trade Policy is general in items and deals with the grant of licences for import of goods and related matters, it is statutory in character. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, authorises the Central Government to make provisions prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling import, export, carriage etc. of the goods and by the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, dated December 7, 1955, and by the provisions which were sought to be repealed restrictions already imposed. The order was clearly legislative in character. The Import Trade Policy was evolved to facilitate the mechanism of the Act and the orders issued thereunder. Even granting that the Import Trade Policy notifications were issued in exercise of the power under section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....odied in Sec. 115 of the Evidence Act, which is not a rule of equity but is a rule of evidence that was formulated and applied in Courts of law; while the doctrine with which I am now dealing, takes its origin from the Jurisdiction assumed by Courts of equity to intervene in the case of, or to prevent fraud. This case, is in our judgment, a clear authority that even though the case does not fall within the terms of S. 115 of the Evidence Act, it is still open to a party who has acted on a representation made by the Government to claim that the Government shall be, bound to carry out the promise made by it, even though the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by the Constitution. 63.  The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon another subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co, Ltd., v. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621) where their Lordships have observed :- "We do not think that in order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is necessary for the promisee to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in reliance on the promise. But we may make it clear that if by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the promisee has, acting in reliance on the promise, altered his position and it is not necessary for him to further show that he has acted to his detriment. Here, the appellant clearly altered its position by borrowing moneys from various financial institutions, purchasing plant and machinery from M/s. Desmet (India) Pvt. Ltd., and setting up a vanaspati plant, in the belief induced by the representation of the Government that sales tax exemption would be granted for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the production. The Government was, therefore, bound on the principle of promissory estoppel to make good the representation made by it." 64.  The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions had been induced by the various notifications to produce sugar in the lean months of certain sugar years in order that the production of sugar in the country may increase. In respect of the notification dated 13-10-1971, ISMA had written a letter requesting the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, to confirm the presumption, namely that a factory which had worked during the base period, i.e., during the period commencing from the first day of October 1970, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etc., and thus acted to their detriment. Under these circumstances, I agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions that the principle of promissory estoppel applies and that it is not open to the respondents to go back upon their representation and contend that the petitioners are not entitled to excise duty rebate merely because there was no production of sugar at all during the base period in the previous year or years. 65. As stated earlier, the bar of limitation under rule 10 has been raised by the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1625 of 1978 and 1685 of 1979 and under rule 10 read with rule 173-J by the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1006,1016 and 4513 of 1978 and 978 and 2483 of 1979. The dates on which credit was given for the excise duty rebate had not been mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of W.P. Nos. 1006, 1016 and 1625 of 1978. The dates on which credit for excise duty rebate has been given are mentioned in W.P. Nos. 4513 of 1978, 978, 1685 and 2483 of 1979 as 31-1-1973, 1-1-1975, 8-11-1974 and 11-11-1974 respectively. The dates of demand for repayment of the amounts have been mentioned in W.P. Nos. 1006, 1016, 1625 and 4513 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usual interpretation to the term 'assessment'......... Rules 10 and 10A, placed side by side, do raise difficulties of interpretation. Rule 10 seems to be so widely worded as to cover any inadvertence, error, collusion or misconstruction on the part of an officer as well as any `mis-statement as to the quantity, description or value of such goods on the part of the owner' as causes of short levy. Rule 10A would appear to cover any 'deficiency in duty if the duty has for any reason been short levied', except that it would be outside the purview of Rule 10-A if its collection is expressly provided for by any rule. Both the rules, as they stood at the relevant time, dealt with collection and not with assessment. They have to be harmonised. In N.B. Sanjana v. Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. 1978 E.L.T. (J 399) (A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2039) this court harmonised them by indicating that Rule 10-A, which was residuary in character, would be inapplicable if a case fell within a specified category of cases mentioned in Rule 10........." We think that Rule 10 should be confined to cases where the demand is being made for a short levy caused wholly by one of the reasons given in tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see as if for the expression 'three months', the expression 'one year' were substituted in those rules. In view of rule 175-J, which I find was not noticed by the Patna High Court, I am unable to say that rule 10 will not apply to cases coming under chapter VII-A. ........................... In N.B. Sanjana v. E. S. W. Mills (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2039) it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that rule 10-A was residuary in character and that it would apply only to the cases not covered by rule 10............ It is seen that Rule 10 expressly refers to a case where the short levy is due to a misconstruction and provides a period of three months from the date of payment of the duty or adjustments in the account-current, for the issuance of a notice to show cause why the short levy should not be made good. All the instant cases are clearly covered by rule 10 and, therefore, there is no occasion for the applicability of rule 10-A. Rule 10 read with rule 173-J(i) prescribes one year as the period of limitation but it is not disputed that all the assessments and adjustments were made more than one year prior to the date of the trade notice i.e., 28th July, 1976. The impugned demands must ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has not been contended in that counter affidavit that the writ petition is not maintainable. 69.  In W.P. Nos. 1006 and 1016 of 1978, the petitioners have contended that since the impugned action had been taken only in pursuance of the decision of the Government of India and the excise department was adopting the same attitude all over India, any appeal to the appellate authority would be only illusory and of no avail and that the petitioners have therefore no other option except to approach this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In W.P. No. 1625 of 1978, an appeal had been filed before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras, but no revision against his order. The respondents have contended in the counter affidavit filed in these W.P. Nos. 1006, 1016 and 1625 of 1978 that the petitioners have not exhausted the departmental remedies. But it has not been contended that these writ petitions are not maintainable. 70.  In W.P. 4513 of 1978, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No. 1016 of 1978 which has been adopted by the respondents in W.P. No. 451....