2017 (11) TMI 1395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal And AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR ORDER CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1914 OF 2009 On 27.10.1996, the Prime Minister of the country made a statement at Guwahati that new initiatives would be announced for the industrial development of the North Eastern region. Pursuant to the said statement, an Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1997 was issued by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India, by which, inter alia, a tax holiday, including exemption from central excise duty, was promised to eligible units for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. In exercise of powers under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....senior counsel appearing for the respondent. Having perused the order of the High Court, we find that the entire basis of the High Court's conclusions in the matter and the grant of benefit to the respondent, is on the application of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. The High Court, taking into account the industrial policy and the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1997, was of the view that the respondent-industry was entitled to the benefit of the exemption as promised thereunder which is from the date of commercial production. Exemption from payment of central excise duty is a matter of statutory dispensation being covered by Section 5A of the Act. In a situation where acting pursuant to promise contained in the Office Memorandum dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 08.07.1999 applicable to the State of Meghalaya. The promise made in the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1997 having been implemented and no prejudice being caused to the respondent-industry, merely because the starting point of the exemption is shifted to a later date i.e., the date of the notification, we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in applying the principle of Promissory Estoppel to grant the benefit of exemption to the industrial unit from the date of production instead of the date of the exemption notification. The High Court by passing the impugned order has really given retrospective effect to the exemption notification which is not permissible in law. We, therefore, do not agree with the conclusion recor....