TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& X). ii. To issue a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent no. 2 to reinstate Khasra Nos. 148D, 176B, 173B & 176A in village Chandrabani Khalsa, Mohobewala industrial area, Dehradun in Annexure II to the Notification 50/2003 CE dated 10.06.2003 with retrospective effect. iii. To issue any other writ or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case." 2. This writ petition was earlier disposed of along with a batch writ petitions by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2006 whereby the High Court was pleased to constitute a high powered committee and empowered it with judicial powers. Against the said order the Union of India, after obtaining special leave to appeal, preferred a batch of civil appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 2007 and other connected matters. The batch of appeals was taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.01.2020 was pleased to dispose of the appeals and remanded the present petition for proper adjudication. We find it appropriate to quote paragraphs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecognizing exemption claim of the petitioner was issued. vi. On 04.03.2005/ 18.08.2005/ 08.09.2005, petitioner exchanged correspondences with the respondent no. 6 in respect to proposed activity to be carried on Khasra No. 148 B & 149B. vii. On 19.05.2005, the Central Excise Notification No. 27/2005 was issued. viii. On 02.07.2005/15.07.2005, Industries Department represented before respondent no. 1 for correction of anomaly created by Notification 27/2005. ix. On 28.09.2005/ 03.10.2005, petitioner was directed by respondent no. 6 to deposit Central Excise Duty as applicable with interest w.e.f. 19.05.2005. x. On 17.10.2005, petitioner intimated respondent no. 4 and 6 that petitioner is putting up a new unit at Khasra No. 148B and 149B. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that once the Khasra Nos. 148D, 176B, 173B and 176A have been included in Annexure no. 2 (2003 Notification), then it was not proper, and also illegal on the part of the respondents, to exclude the three plots bearing Khasra Nos. 176B, 173B and 176A from the ambit of Annexure No. 2 and to add it in Annexure no. 3 to the 2005 Notification thereby denying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re incompetent to incorporate the same in the said notification, particularly, in view of the fact that the when the said mistake was pointed out, the Central Government agreed to give advantage to new industrial units situated on the said Khasra nos. by incorporating Annexure No. III to the Notification dated 10.06.2003 by the amendment effected on 19.05.2005. The Division Bench dismissed the petition. 6. However, we find that present case and earlier decided case of M/s Sant Steel (supra) are distinguishable in view of the fact that Khasra Nos. 148D, 176B, 173B & 176A belonging to the petitioner were included in the exempted list mentioned in Notification No 50 / 2003. It is also apparent from the record that as per communication issued to M/s Titan Industries Ltd., Mohabewala Industrial Area, Dehradun dated 22.12.2004 they are entitled to get concession. It is appropriate to take note of paragraph 7 (i) of the said communication, which reads as under: "7(i). M/s Titan Industries Ltd., Mohabewala Industrial Area, Dehradun is situated at Khasra No. 148 D, 176 B, 173 B & 176 A in village Chandrabani Khalsha, Tehsil Dehradun [Certificate of Tehsildar, Dehradun & Letter o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od from 15.10.2003 to 01.12.2003 have already been issued to the party. As per the Statement (ANNEXURE-11) of Chartered Engineer, installed capacity of the unit of the party has been increased from 2000000 watches per annum to 3000000 watches per annum after having installed machineries namely Semi Auto PPE Line (01 No.), W/R Testing Machines (02 Nos.), Dynamic Test Equipment (01 No.) & Manual Assembly in the various stage of production namely Casing, Water Resistance, RT & Strapping respectively. Since Dynamic Testing Equipment was installed in the unit of the party on 01.12.2004 after having transferred from their unit situated at Housur, hence party's contention that they have expanded their installed capacity after having undertaken substantial expansion of their unit is correct after the date of installation of Dynamic Test Equipment i.e. 01.12.2003. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid observations, it is apparent that they have completed their expansion under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 read with judgment of Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s Travancore Titanium Product Vs. CC [2002(148)ELT640(T)] and started their commercial production after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is overriding public interest. In that case the overriding public interest would prevail. In Shrijee Sales Corporation Vs. Union of India, (1997) (89) E.L.T. 452 (SC) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is only in superior public interest that the Government may withdraw the representation or promise held out by it, even though someone having acted upon the representation or promise has adversely affected himself. It was also held that the Court has to be satisfied about the existence of such superior public interest, when not enforcing principle of promissory estoppel against the Government or the State on the plea of superior public interest. 10. In this case, no rationale has been put forth by any of the respondents for including the four Khasras in the exemption list at annexure II and later on, for withdrawing 03 Khasra out of the 04 in another list - Annexure III vide 2005 Notification. There is no pleading of any superior public interest by the respondents. They have not also established the same. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for all the respondents never raised the question of superior public interest. So, this Court is of the opinion that principle o....