9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been passed in Writ Petition No. 628/2005 which had already been disposed of on 20.4.2006. Respondent No.1 had set up a unit for manufacturing MS Inguts Runner Risers, on the land being Khasra Nos. 60-Ka & 61 in the Industrial Estate, Jashodhpur, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal (Uttaranchal) now known as Uttarakhand, with effect from 31.3.1997. The Central Government issued a notification bearing No. 49/2003 on 10.6.2003 exempting the industries located in the State of Uttaranchal from payment of excise duty. Allegedly, the said notification was to apply only to the new industrial units, namely, those industrial units which had commenced their commercial production on or after 7.1.2003 or the existing industrial units which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption would be extended only to the new units and not to the existing units. The said draft notification was forwarded to the State of Uttarakhand. Upon verification of the same by the State of Uttarakhand and upon taking of a policy decision by the Government of India, a further notification was issued on 19.5.2005 amending its earlier notification. Respondent No.1 questioned the said notification by filing another writ application, being Writ Petition No.628/2005, before the Uttaranchal High Court on or about 19.6.2005 inter alia stating that the Government of India acted mala fide by including the Khasra numbers of the appellant in Annexure II, as by reason thereof it has been deprived of its right to obtain exemption from payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government has itself recommended for correction in the notification under Schedule II instead of Schedule III has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, the respondents are directed to comply the earlier order dated 20.4.2006 passed by this Court within a period of one month from today." As according to the Government of India, again a factual error has been committed by the High Court, an application for review was filed by it which was marked as Review Petition No.81/2006 in Writ Petition NO.628/2005. The said Review Petition appears to have been listed along with other review application filed by the Central Government. However, in the cause title of the impugned order dated 19.12.2006, in stead and place of Review Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and direct the Division Bench to hear the said Review Petition No.81/2006 in Writ Petition No.628/2005 afresh. We direct accordingly.
We make it clear that the High Court, while considering the the said review application on merit, shall inter alia consider the stand of the Central Government vis-a-vis its policy to exempt the new entrepreneurs from payment of central excise duty.
The parties shall be at liberty to file additional affidavits. It will also be open to the parties to produce additional documents before the High Court.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
