TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 5. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against common judgment and order dated 10-12-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 749/2010 [2015 (328) E.L.T. 56 (Gau.)] as well as W.P.(C) No. 750/2010 repelling the challenge made to the Notifications No. 11/2007-C.E., dated 1-3-2007 and No. 21/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 withdrawing the exemption of Excise duty in respect of the products covered by the respective notifications. 3. The brief factual background of the case is that the Govt. of India had earlier issued the "New Industrial Policy and Other Concessions for North Eastern Region, 1997" which was notified by the Office Memorandum No. EA/1/2/96-IPD, dated 24-12-1997 announcing incentives by way of Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yment of excise duty in respect of goods specified in the schedule to the notification and cleared from units located in the State of Assam or Tripura or Meghalaya or Mizoram or Nagaland or Arunachal Pradesh. However, soon thereafter, the benefit of exemption pertaining to tobacco products, which was earlier made available under the Notification Nos. 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E., were withdrawn on 31-12-1999 only to be restored again by a separate Notification No. 45/99-C.E. issued on 17-1-2000. From the period in between 17-1-2000 to 21-1-2004 several notifications had been issued by the Central Excise Department withdrawing the benefit upon the tobacco products including cigarette and thereafter again partially restoring the same until such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e policy of 2007, inter alia, covering all goods falling under Chapter 24 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 so as to include all tobacco products and manufactured tobacco subsidies as well as pan masala as covered under Chapter 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Consequently, a separate notification Bearing No. 21/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 was issued by the Department of Central Excise withdrawing the exemption granted to pan masala under the original Notification No. 32/99-C.E. making it clear that the exemption shall not be available w.e.f. 31-3-2007. 5. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 25-4-2007, with which we are concerned in the present appeal, the appellant had a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Division Bench has held that the notification impugned therein i.e. No. 11/2007-C.E. was hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppels and was not sustainable in law. The observations of the Division Bench made in the judgment and order dated 20-4-2016 are quoted herein below for ready reference :- "26. Thus, in our opinion, prima facie, the impugned Notification No. 11/2007-C.E. is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppels for the following reasons : (a) By the North East Industrial Policy, 1997 implemented by the Notifications No. 32/99-C.E. and No. 33/99-C.E., a promise was held out by the respondent authorities that excise and additional excise exemptions would be given to those investors who started pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot possible, the promise would become final and irrevocable. As already held by the Apex Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court will not act on the mere ipsi dixit of the Government, for it is the Court which has to decide and not the Government whether the Government should be held exempt from liability. This is the essence of the rule of law. The burden would be upon the Government to show that the public interest is so overwhelming that it would be inequitable to hold the Government bound by the promise and the Court will insist on a highly rigorous standard of proof in the discharge of this burden. The main reasons given by the respondent authorities are found at para 4(xi) to (xiv) of their counter-affidavit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... This is evident from the Office Memorandum dated 1-4-2007 which categorically stated that industrial units which had commenced commercial production on or before 31-3-2007 would continue to get benefits/incentives under NEIP, 1997. Under the circumstances, the right of the appellant to get benefits/incentives made available under the Notifications Nos. 11/2004-C.E. and 28/2004-C.E. cannot be abrogated by the impugned Notification. Once it is found that the appellant has admittedly acted upon the promise held out by the respondents in the Notification Nos. 11/2004-C.E. and 28/2004-C.E. and made some investment, though the quantum whereof is not ascertainable at this stage as will be evident hereafter, it may not no longer be possible to re....