Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2023 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 800 - HC - Central ExciseExemption from excise duty in regard to supplies of high speed diesel (HSD) manufactured and supplied by BPCL - Withdrawal of benefit of Notification No. 108/95 CE dated 28.08.1995 by virtue of a subsequent Notification bearing No.10 of 2017-Central Excise dated 30.06.2017 - Government is satisfied that such withdrawal of exemption was warranted in public interest - case of petitioner is that the exemption ought not to have been withdrawn during the currency of the agreement between the petitioner and TNRSP - second case of petitioner is that the Government cannot merely cite 'public interest' but must be able to establish what the specific circumstances of public interest were, that justified such withdrawal. HELD THAT:- The case law cited by the petitioner being Birla Corporation [2019 (12) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] would be distinguishable for the reason that in that case the exemption notification had been issued and thereafter withdrawn even prior to the date of grant of the exemption. In the case of Unicorn Industries [2019 (9) TMI 791 - SUPREME COURT], the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the similar question as to whether the withdrawal of an exemption notification would result in the benefit of the argument of promissory estoppal being available to the petitioner - Upon consideration of several judgments that have been rendered earlier, Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India [1994 (10) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT], Sales Tax Officer Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1997 (12) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT], Shree Durga Oil Mills vs. Sales Tax Officer [1987 (9) TMI 407 - ORISSA HIGH COURT], Shrijee Sales Corporation Vs. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. [1978 (12) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT], State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer Oil Industries [1999 (4) TMI 523 - SUPREME COURT], Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd., Vs. State of U.P. [2011 (1) TMI 1248 - SUPREME COURT] & Directorate General of Foreign Trade Vs. Kanak Exports [2015 (11) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT], the Court concluded that the modification or withdrawal of a notification in public interest would fall fully within the domain and discretion of the, public authorities, that is, either the Government or revenue authorities. No assessee can claim an exemption as a matter of right. No doubt, in this case an exemption had been granted in respect of duty liability in respect of those projects that have been funded by the World Bank and the assessees had been availing the benefit of this exemption from 1989 onwards. As far as the demand relating to the period post 01.07.2017, BPCL appears to have threatened the petitioner that it would invoke a bank guarantee that was in its possession though unrelated to the present contract - While the petitioner would deplore the action of BPCL in making such a threat, ultimately the payment has been effected by the petitioner to BPCL suo motu and has not been recovered by BPCL by invoking bank guarantee. This aspect of the matter is left as such, without comment except to state that the amount as above shall remain in the possession of BPCL till a final demand is raised by the Customs Authorities - petition disposed off.
|