AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the impugned notifications 11/2007-C.E., dated 1-3-2007 and No. 21/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 had been kept in abeyance. 1. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.K. Medhi, Mr. R.K. Bharali, Mr. J. Das and Mr. A. Pathak, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, for the State as well as the Union respondents respectively. 2. The contentious pleadings dealt case wise lay the essential facts. The petitioner in WP(C) 749/2010 has introduced itself to be a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, in New Delhi having fifteen units functional in the State of Assam out of which eight are exclusively engaged in the manufacture of pan masala. The Central Government in the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, in order to provide a fillip to industrial growth in the North-Eastern Region through its North-Eastern Industrial Policy conveyed by the Office Memorandum No. EA/1/2/96-IPD, dated 24-12-1997 announced new ini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for a full term of 10 years as alluded in the Notifications No(s) 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E. It having satisfied the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the North East Industrial Policy, 1997, (for short hereafter referred to as the Policy 1997) and being entitled, availed the benefit of exemption from payment of excise duty on the finished goods manufactured and cleared by it and was duly allowed the refund of such duty deposited by it since the year 2001 following the verification of its claims relatable thereto. 4. The North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (for short hereafter referred to as the Policy 2007) promulgated vide Office Memorandum No. 10(3)/2007-DBA-II/NER, dated 1-4-2007 by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion followed which though approved a package of fiscal incentives and other concessions for the North-East Region with effect from that date, catalogued pan masala covered under Chapter 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short hereafter also referred to as the Tariff Act, 1985) in the "Negative List" of industries identified a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Government issued Notification No. 45/99, dated 31-12-1999 under Section 5A of the Act whereby the Notifications No. 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 were amended with effect from that date excluding all tobacco related products including pan masala falling under Chapter 24 or Heading No. 21.06 of the First Schedule or Second Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, from the purview of the exemption, the benefit was, however, restored by the Notification No. 1/2000, dated 17-1-2000. Thereafter by Notification No. 1/2001-C.E., dated 22-1-2001 the exemption on cigarettes was withdrawn. This was followed by the Notification No. 6/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 withholding the excise duty exemption on all goods excluding the same from the ambit of the Notification Nos. 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999. According to the answering respondents, the Government of India, on a due consideration of the achievements in the realm of industrial development in the North-East Region, mushroom growth of tobacco related companies and heavy refund due to excise duty exemptions, in public interest by the Finance Act, 2003 inserted Section 154 and consequently rolled back the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly issued Notification No. 11/2007, dated 1-3-2007 also under the above provision of the Act amending the one dated 21-1-2004 clarifying that the exemption contained therein would not be available to the goods cleared on or after the first day of March, 2007. 9. While reiterating that the promise of incentives under Policy 1997 had ceased with the amendment vide the Finance Act, 2003 read with the Ninth Schedule thereto excluding pan masala and other products specified therein from the purview of the exemption, the partial respite from this levy granted by the Notification No. 69/2003, dated 25-8-2003 and 11/2007-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 has been asserted to be independent of the aforementioned policy and not by way of extension thereof. It has been stated that out of an amount of Rs. 100 crores represented by the petitioner to have been invested during the pre-escrow period, only an amount of Rs. 34 crores had been certified by the Investment Appraisal Committee to have been genuinely applied in its plants and machinery and social infrastructure projects. 10. Referring to the negative list in the Policy 2007, the answering respondents traced the radix of the said measu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to lay any factual foundation to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel they have accused it of suppression of the material fact that it had, the impugned notification notwithstanding, been paying Central Excise duty for the pan masala manufactured in terms of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity, Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (hereafter referred to as the Duty Rules). As the withholding of the said fact had a vital and decisive bearing on the grant of interim order in its favour, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner has thereby disentitled itself for any equitable relief from this Court. 13. The petitioner in its reply to this additional affidavit of the respondents has in substance sought to explain the time lag by referring to its persistent efforts with the various authorities of the Government Departments for the mitigation of the prejudicial consequences of the impugned notification. Assurances to it for restoration of the benefit of exemption made by concerned authorities but eventually departed from has also been cited as a reason for the interval. While denying the imputation of suppression of any material the petitioner has i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cleared after 1-3-2007. It has assailed this notification as well as the one dated 25-4-2007 to be repugnant to the Policy 2007 besides being in arbitrary repudiation of the doctrines of promisory etoppel and legitimate expectation. Its failure, in spite of persistent representations to elicit redressal of its grievances has also been recited. 16. The answering respondents have defended the impugned notification dated 1-3-2007 to be in public interest and has denied the petitioner's charge of arbitrariness, illegality and mala fide. In their additional affidavit they have pleaded that the notification dated 25-8-2003 was not pursuant to any promise held out by the Union Government and being under Section 5A of the Act, it was permissible to rescind, vary and amend the grant accorded by it. They accused the petitioner of suppression of the fact that the withdrawal of the benefit of exemption granted to tobacco manufacturing units under the Policy 1997 by the insertion of Section 154 in the Finance Act, 2003 had been upheld by the Apex Court in R.C. Tobacco v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 725, for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. They further cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it have been included in the Negative List in the Policy 2007, in view of the above saving clause, it having commenced its commercial production thereof on or before 31-3-2007, cannot be denied the benefit of the incentives/exemptions sanctioned by the Policy 2007. This, Mr. Bhattacharyya, has pleaded is amply demonstrated amongst others by the office memorandum dated 22-11-2007, 24-1-2008 and 23-2-2009 of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India, urging upon the Finance Department to reconsider its decision of withdrawal of the privilege of exemption of excise duty on the said products. The notification dated 25-4-2007 has been denounced as well on the count that the grant of public interest as mentioned therein is visibly vague and unintelligible in the attendant facts and circumstances. Referring to Sections 5A and 38A of the Act, Mr. Bhattacharyya had maintained that the Policy 1997 has its roots in the legislative scheme outlined thereby, continuance of the benefit held out by it (policy 1997) being the mandate of Section 38A. Any 'different intention' as envisaged in this legal provision thus necessarily has to be informed with relevant considera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving failed to respond to the repeated requests of the petitioner for redressal, it ought not to be non-suited on this ground. This is more so as the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India, held the view against the impugned decision and had been urging upon the Ministry of Finance for reconsideration thereof. As the petitioner was thus waiting in bona fide expectation that its grievances would be mitigated without indulging in avoidable litigation, it ought not to be penalised for the inexplicable omission on the part of the respondents. Mr. Bhattacharyya pleaded that as with the issuance of the notification dated 1-3-2007, the petitioner had no other alternative but to pay the excise duty as leviable on its products, the charge of suppression of this fact is wholly misplaced. As the Revenue has not been prejudiced in any manner by the payment of the impost by it and thus it has not reaped any undue benefit out of the interim order granted, this plea as well ought to be dismissed, he contended. He also referred amongst others to the prayers made in the writ petition to repeal this plea of the respondents. Following decisions were relied upon to substant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC 499 (23) (1998) 1 SCC 572 = 1998 (97) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.) - Sales Tax Officer & Another v. Shree Durga Oil Mills and Another. (24) Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 620. 21. In controversion of the above, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, reiterated the assailment on the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of delay and shielding of material facts. Mr. Choudhury has urged that the omission on the part of the petitioner to mention about the payment by it of excise duty on its products in its pleadings amounts to a conscious failure to make candid disclosure of relevant facts which is a sine qua non for the invocation of the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As admittedly the petitioner had been making such payment, its intentional suppression of the above fact weighed in its favour facilitating the grant of the interim order. There being no explanation worth the name for the appreciable time lag between the issuance of the impugned notifications and the institutions of the writ petitions, those are liable to be dismissed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any challenge to the said policy, this notification on this count as well is unimpeachable. 23. With reference to Section 38A of the Act, the learned Additional Advocate General has insisted that as the Policy 2007 promulgated after the expiry of 10 years as envisaged by the Policy 1997 conveys an unmistakable dictum of exclusion of the units engaged in the manufacture of goods included in the negative list, it is wholly inconceivable that the benefits and incentives under the former policy were intended to continue based on the date of commencement of production. Mr. Choudhury has thus urged that having regard to the progression of events culminating in the Policy 2007, application of Section 38A to secure the benefit of incentives/exemptions hitherto sanctioned by the Policy 1997 to the manufacturing units commencing production on or before 31-3-2007 is incomprehensible. In order to endorse his assertions, the learned Additional Advocate General pressed into service the following decisions. (1) (2008) 12 SCC 481, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India. (2) (2007) 10 SCC 337 = 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. and Another v. Union of India and Another, (2005) 7 SCC 725 = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 129. 24. Before venturing into the issues of moment stirred by the competing pleadings and the arguments founded thereon, politic it would be to attend to the challenge to the maintainability of the writ petitions at the threshold. The respondents have sought for summary dismissal thereof on the grounds of delay and suppression of material facts. Whereas they contend that the petitioner had wilfully withheld the factum of payment of excise duty subsequent to the impugned notification dated 1-3-2007 and under the Duty Rules as well as the validation of the withdrawal of exemption of the benefits/incentives under the Policy 1997 by the amendment of the Finance Act 1994 in the year 2003, it (petitioner) has denied the asseveration pleading its legal obligation to pay the impost. The plea of delay has been sought to be thwarted by referring to the string of representations submitted by it as well as the communications issued by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, persistently requesting the Ministry of Finance, Department of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ason of the delay as pleaded was also taken note of. 29. Delay thus is not an irremediable vitiating malady acknowledged by the rule of law eventuating refusal of relief though otherwise justified on the merit of the claim. It is a matter of discretion exercisable in the facts of a given case, premium however not extendable to a party consciously guilty of inaction, negligence and laches resulting in conferment and consolidation of rights on the adversary. While delay ought not to be applied as an obdurate rule to decline relief in law, if otherwise allowable, inordinate delay would justify refusal of judicial intervention more particularly, if the same would result in divestiture of a right acquired meanwhile. 30. The impugned notifications though dated 1-3-2007 and 25-4-2007, the writ petitions have been instituted on 1-2-2010 and 21-12-2009 respectively. The petitioner has averred on oath that following the decision of the withdrawal of exemption by these notifications, a series of representations had been filed by it and others to the various authorities of the Central Government seeking restoration of the incentives assured by the Policy 1997. The representatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner seeking prerogative writs must come with clean hands and disclose all facts failing which his petition may be dismissed at the threshold, observed that such a consequence would ensue if the Court, on a scrutiny of the textual facts is satisfied that it had been misled and or deceived by such concealment or retraction. 33. While dwelling on the import of the word "suppression" employed in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Apex Court, in Continental Foundation etc. (supra) elucidated that mere omission to give correct narration would not be so unless it is deliberate to evade payment of duty. It observed that when the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it to be a suppression. 34. The pleaded averments in the writ petitions truly do not refer either to the determination made in R.C. Tobacco, supra, vis-à-vis Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 as well as the payment of excise duty by the petitioner subsequent to the impugned notification dated 1-3-2007 under the aforementioned Rules. It, however, has sought for amongst others a direction to the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t thereunder. Noticing that the policy had been issued on being approved by the Cabinet, it was held that any notification so issued if found to be inconsistent therewith, would be bad to that extent. Unmistakably, the legal premise of the conclusion is that a notification under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was comprehended to further the attainment of the objectives of the Policy and not to scuttle those. 37. While enumerating the grounds on which the vires of a subordinate legislation which in the contextual facts in Dai-Chi, Karkaria Limited, supra, was a notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, could be questioned namely (i) non-conformance with the parent statute (ii) conflict with any other enactment (iii) unreasonableness and manifest arbitrariness and (iv) violation of the principles of industrial justice, the Apex Court observed that in situations where, the State power is one to be exercised in public interest, the same necessarily has to be wielded in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. While dealing with the notifications whereby exemption from duty under the Customs Act, 1962, was partially withdrawn, it was held that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....permissible. The plea of public interest in support of such action in the facts was also rejected to be not borne out by the facts. In this context, their Lordships observed that the Government or its instrumentality ought to abide by their commitments in order to sustain the faith of the polity in the governance more particularly in the domain of representations made by them so as to attract entrepreneurs to act on those by altering their position. 40. That delegated legislation ought to follow formulations designed by a statute or a policy and operate in conformity therewith was reiterated in Global Energy Limited, supra. Government cannot speak in two voices : 41. With reference to Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the Apex Court in State of Bihar and others v. Suprabhat, supra, had remarked that as the notification thereunder is comprehended to extend the benefits of the industrial incentive policy of the State, the exercise of power thereunder cannot be in nullification of the said purpose. That the State which is represented by various departments has to speak in one voice was underlined by the Apex Court in Vadilal Chemicals Limited in which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereof, their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court propounded in favour of the savings otherwise contemplated thereby in absence of a different intention to the contrary. 44. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and Another v. M/s. M.A. Tulloch and Company, supra, authoritatively declared the principle on which the saving clause in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was based. Their Lordships propounded that every latter enactment which supersedes an earlier one or puts an end to an earlier state of law is presumed to intend the continuance of the right accorded and liability incurred under the superseded enactments unless there were sufficient indications - express or implied - in the later enactment designed to completely obliterate the earlier state of law. While highlighting that legislative intent is the final determinant, it was held that there was no distinction between an express provision and one implied, for it is only the form that differs in the two cases. 45. That for the application of a saving clause in the event of a repeal of a statute accompanied by a re-enactment of a law on the same subject, a scrutiny of a contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gislature would indeed be a facet of unreasonableness afflicting the restrained law with the vice of the outrage of Articles 14 and 19. That the reasonableness of the law whereby the benefit of exemption is withdrawn with retrospective effect ought to be judged in the light of the representations to that effect made by the Government was also pleaded. 48. It was responded on behalf of the Union of India that the operation of the notification did not attain the objective of the Policy to ensure long lasting benefit to the State in the form of investment in industries with consequential benefits by way of increased employment opportunities to the local population. It was argued as well that retrospective levy of excise duty was justified particularly when the liability to pay the same was merely suspended by the exemption notifications. Their Lordships while observing that the competence of the Parliament and the State Legislature to repeal, amend or supersede an exemption notification was unquestionable and that a law cannot be held to be unreasonable merely because it is retrospective in operation recorded that the obvious intention behind the grant of the package of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....If a change in policy is sought to be urged by the Government as a justification for his departure from the promise, it would have to establish the reason and the basis thereof to demonstrate that overriding public interest which is a superior equity over individual equity would render it inequitable to enforce the resultant liability against it. In absence of such supervening public interest it may as well be competent for the Government to resile for the promise on giving reasonable notice according thereby an opportunity to the promisee to redeem his position, provided of course it is so possible for him to restore status quo ante. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is essentially founded on the rule of equity and logically cannot be enforced to permit or condone a breach of law or to compel an act prohibited by law. 50. That there is no promissory estoppel against a statute was reiterated by the Apex Court in Sales Tax Officer & Anr. v. Shree Durga Oil Mills & Anr. in (1998) 1 SCC 572, in which a notification u/s. 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was issued granting exemption of tax. The same view was taken in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (supra) where the Apex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; a clear foundation has to be laid in the petition with supporting documents, (d) it has to be shown that the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the promise, (e) it is possible for the Government to resile from its promise when public interest would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry out the promise if enforced would result in a coreach of any law, the Court will not apply the doctrine in abstract. 54. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (supra) succinctly crystallized the notion of legitimate expectation in the following excerpt - "On examination of some of these important decisions it is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but a claim based on some legitimate expectation without knowing more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It was held that the concept of legitimate expectation is "not the key which unlocks the treasure of natural justice and it ought not to unlock the gates which shut the Court out of review on the merits", particularly when the elements of speculation and uncertainty are inherent in that very concept. 57. In this context the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa & Anr. (supra) while dealing with the sales tax exemption of the respondent therein under the industrial policy involved held that the provisions of the related Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ought to be examined to ascertain the bearing thereof on the policy. The relevance as well as the determinative orientation of legislation relatable to an incentive granted under the industrial policy was thus clearly underlined. 58. The following observations of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, 1993 (1) SCC 71 aptly abridge the underlying principle : "The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndustry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. By the Notification No. 32/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 issued under Section 5A of the Act read with Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the Central Government being satisfied that it was necessary in public interest exempted, the goods specified in the First and Second Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1985 and cleared from a unit located in the Growth Centres or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centres etc. specified in the annexure appended thereto from the duty of excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon under any of the aforementioned enactments as was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the account currently maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). 60. The notification apart from narrating the exemption proposed limited the benefits to the new industrial units which had commenced commercial production on or after 24-12-1997 as well as units existing before that date but had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amended excluding all goods falling under Chapter 24 of the First and Second Schedules to the Tariff Act, 1985 from the purview of such exemption. Noticeably this did not affect the incentives to that effect vis-à-vis the pan masala catalogued under Chapter 21 of this Act but sought to deny the benefit thereof vis-à-vis the goods falling under Chapter 24 of the First Schedule or Second Schedule to the Tariff Act, which included other tobacco products as recited therein. Though the petitioner's units engaged in the manufacture of tobacco products were thus affected, the materials on record do not establish that the said notification at its instance had been nullified by any judicial forum. 63. On the other hand, by the Finance Act, 2003, which received assent of the President of India on 14-5-2003, Section 154 was inserted in the following terms :- Section 154. Amendment of notifications issued under section 5A of the Central Excise Act. - (1) The notifications of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Nos. G.S.R. 508(E), dated the 8th July, 1999 and G.S.R. 509(E), dated 8th July, 1999 issued under sub-sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if the provisions of this section had been in force at all material times within a period of thirty days from the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003, receives the assent of the President, and in the event of non-payment of duty or interest or other charges so recoverable, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent., per annum shall be payable from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of thirty days till the date of payment. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if the notifications referred to in sub-section (1) had not been amended retrospectively by that sub-section. 64. By a legislative mandate, therefore, the Notification Nos. 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 corresponding to G.S.R. 508(E) and G.S.R. 509(E) stood amended retrospectively in the manner as specified in the Ninth Schedule with the predication that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree, or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority, any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....panse of the application of the Policy 1997 and rendered it non est so far as the representation thereunder for exemption from payment of excise duty on cigarette, pan masala containing tobacco falling under heading 2106.00 or 2400.49 on and from 8-7-1999 as well as goods falling under Chapter 24 on and from 1-3-2001. It is in this premise that the notifications that followed would have to be analysed. 66. By notification No. 69/2003-C.E., dated 25-8-2003 issued under Section 5A of the Act and other cognate enactments, a few of the goods falling under Chapter 24 were thus exempted from payment of excise duty subject amongst others to the condition that the units so identified had commenced commercial production on or after 24-12-1997 but not later than 28-2-2001 and had already availed the benefit of the notifications dated 8-7-1999 and had been continuing with the manufacturing activities after 28-2-2001. 67. The conditions of eligibility to avail the benefit of partial exemption thus granted are noticeable. The date of commencement of commercial production tallies with the one as mentioned in the Policy 1997 with the deadline therefor i.e. 28-2-2001 being on the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. Thereby all new units as well as existing units which would go in for substantial expansion unless otherwise specified and which would commence commercial production within 10 years from the date of the notification i.e. 1-4-2007 were construed to be eligible for the incentives mentioned therein including 100% excise duty exemption on finished products made in the North Eastern Region as was available under the Policy 1997 for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The incentives on substantial expansion were to be given to the units effecting an increase by not less than 25% in the value of fixed capital investment in plant and machinery for the purpose of expansion of capacity/modernization and diversification as against an increase by 331/2 as prescribed by the Policy 1997. 100% excise duty exemption as assured under the Policy 1997 was to continue as well. The Policy 2007 in clause (x) contained a negative list of industries ineligible for benefits thereunder. For ready reference, the same is extracted herein below. "(x) Negati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of events subsequent to the promulgation of the Policy 1997 and reading between the lines of the Policy 2007, I am inclined to sustain the resistance offered by the respondents. Clause (ii) of the Policy 2007 with the caption "Duration" indicates that all new units as well as existing units which go in for substantial expansion unless otherwise specified and which commence commercial production within 10 years from the date of the notification would be eligible for incentives for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The Policy did contemplate only new units as well as existing units venturing out for commercial production within 10 years from the date of issuance thereof unless otherwise specified. The negative list provided by the Policy 2007 spells out the industries, which are ineligible for the benefits thereunder. In the estimate of this Court, these are the industries contemplated to be excepted from the purview of the Policy 2007. Clause 2 thereof when viewed in this context refers to the industrial units, which have commenced commercial production on or before 31-3-2007, i.e. those not contemplated in Clause (ii). Having regard to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State. The power to lay down a policy by an executive decision or by legislation includes the power to withdraw the same unless in the former eventuality it is afflicted by a mala fide exercise of power or if the action taken is in abuse of power. It is judicially recognized that a authority has to be left to decide its full range of choice within the executive or legislative power and more particularly in matters of economic policy, the Courts have conceded greater leeway to the executive and the legislature. If the Government is satisfied that change in the policy is warranted in public interest it would be entitled to revise it and herald a new one and the Court would prefer to permit a free play to it in fiscal matters and to act upon the same. This discretion to alter the policy in exercise of executive power is however neither unqualified nor unfettered and such an action is amenable to judicial review. The Apex Court in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. (supra) emphasized that the State to this effect has to act validly on discernible reasons and not whimsically for ulterior purposes. This view reverberated in Dhampur Sugar (Kaship....