9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Judgment per: Deepak Gupta, J.]. - By means of this review petition, the petitioners have sought for recalling of the judgment dated 1-10-2007 delivered by us in CWP No. 23 of 2007. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the writ petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing and sale of tread rubber. The firm is located in District Sirmour, Himachal Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to 30-9-2005. Reply was filed by the writ-petitioner and the respondent No. 5 accepted the explanation of the petitioner and the benefit of the fiscal incentive was extended to the petitioner from the date of commencement of the commercial production after undertaking substantial expansion i.e. from 17-8-2004. Thereafter fresh show cause notices were issued for the same period by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to be applicable retrospectively and as to whether the benefit of subsidy could be granted to the petitioner/Unit from the date of issuance of original notification in 2003 or from the date of issuance of the notification in the form of correction issued w.e.f. 1-10-2005? 3. Whether the petitioner/Unit had already taken the benefit under the scheme promulgated by respondent No. 2, as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew petition arises is disposed of. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the order of the respondent No. 5 was challenged only during the pendency of the writ petition. She further submits that this later development has no effect on the merits of the case. According to her, even if the decision of respondent No. 5 is not taken into cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
