Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 529 - HC - Central ExciseManufacture of rosin and turpentine without aid of power - seeking retrospective exemption - writ of mandamus for directing the respondent to issue a Notification under Section 11C of the Act extending the benefit of not requiring the Central Excise Duty for the units manufacturing rosin and turpentine without the aid of power, except for the purpose of using electricity to pump, for lifting up water to overhead tanks; for the period from 27.05.1994 to 28.02.2006. Held that:- The categorical finding in the case of M/s Gurukripa Resins Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (7) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is that the use of pump for lifting water would amount to manufacturing with the aid of power and the clarification of 1978 was deemed to have been withdrawn from 27.05.1994 and, thus, the units using pump for lifting water would not be entitled to exemption from the period 27.05.1994 to 28.02.2006. In view of the findings returned by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Gurukripa Resins Pvt. Ltd., which manufacturing unit was admittedly identically situated as that of the petitioner’s unit, the petitioner cannot, thus, seek the benefit of quashing of the decision communicated by the Ministry of Finance by letter dated 30.09.2014. The power under Section 11C is discretionary and it is not mandatory for the Government to issue a notification under Section 11C under all circumstances. As emerges from the counter affidavit, the policy of the Government is to issue such a notification only if it benefits a large section of the trade and not if it benefits only a few assessees. As per the respondent, only two manufacturers would be affected by such a notification. We do not find any fault with such a view and decision of the Government. We are further of view that discretion is granted to the Government to issue or not to issue such a notification and the discretion has been exercised after conducting survey and resurvey and on a justifiable ground, the said decision, in our view, does not require any interference. - Writ petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee.
|