TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 24.12.1997 having been implemented and no prejudice being caused to the respondent-industry, merely because the starting point of the exemption is shifted to a later date i.e., the date of the notification, we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in applying the principle of Promissory Estoppel to grant the benefit of exemption to the industrial unit from the date of production instead of the date of the exemption notification. Relief accorded to parties - Held that: - the position that would emerge is that the respondent-industrial unit would be liable to pay excise duty for the period from 14.07.1999 to 01.03.2000 and would be entitled to refund for excise duty paid for the period from 14.07.2009 to 01.03.2010 - It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om central excise duty, was promised to eligible units for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. In exercise of powers under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), notification dated 08.07.1999 was issued exempting the class of eligible units from payment of, inter alia , central excise duty and additional duties of excise for a period of 10 years from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production, whichever is later. The aforesaid notification under Section 5A of the Act was made applicable to the North Eastern States of Assam and Tripura. Thereafter, amendments were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise duty is a matter of statutory dispensation being covered by Section 5A of the Act. In a situation where acting pursuant to promise contained in the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1997, the benefit of exemption was initially extended to the States of Assam and Tripura on 08.07.1999 and, thereafter, to the State of Meghalaya on 01.03.2000 and 29.03.2000, we do not see how in a situation where the exemption notifications in the State of Meghalaya were issued in the year 2000, the High Court by invoking the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel could have held the respondent-industry to be entitled to such benefit from the date of commercial production i.e., 14.07.1999. The question of invoking the principle of Promissory Estoppel to units on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing the impugned order has really given retrospective effect to the exemption notification which is not permissible in law. We, therefore, do not agree with the conclusion recorded by the High Court in the order under challenge. The next question that has to be addressed is the relief that should be accorded to the parties at this point of time. In terms of the conclusion recorded by us above, the position that would emerge is that the respondent-industrial unit would be liable to pay excise duty for the period from 14.07.1999 to 01.03.2000 and would be entitled to refund for excise duty paid for the period from 14.07.2009 to 01.03.2010. It would, therefore, really be a question of adjustment of accounts between the Revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
