Page 106 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

496 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

different types of tax evasion tactics by unscrupulous manufacturers - Object
of granting exemption by way of refund was to refund the Excise duty paid on
genuine manufacturing activities and object subsequent notifica-
tions/industrial policies was prevention of tax evasion - Subsequent notifica-
tions/industrial policies only rationalizes quantum of exemption and propos-
ing rate of refund on total duty payable on genuine manufactured goods -
Subsequent notifications/industrial policies issued in public interest and is-
sued after thorough analysis of cases of tax evasion and receipt of reports - No
vested right taken away by such notifications/policy - Said notifications/policy
not bad in law, arbitrary and/or hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel - Said
notifications/policies only declare refund of Excise duty paid genuinely and
paid on actual manufacturing of goods and not on the duty paid on the goods
manufactured only on paper and without undertaking any manufacturing ac-
tivities of such goods - Clarificatory in nature issued in larger public interest
and in Revenue’s interest - Can be made applicable retrospectively to prevent
frustration of object and purpose and intention of Government to provide Ex-
cise duty exemption only in respect of genuine manufacturing activities car-
ried out in concerned areas - Decision of respective High Courts to quash sub-
sequent notifications/industrial policies, set aside - Clarification that judgment
shall not affect cases in which Excise duty already refunded prior to subse-
quent notifications/industrial policies and they are not to be reopened - Fur-
ther clarification that pending refund applications to be decided as per subse-
quent notifications/industrial policies - Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
[paras 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15, 16]
Appeals disposed of
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company
— 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................................................... [Paras 8.7, 13.6]
Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Union of India — 2000 (119) E.L.T. 516 (S.C.) — Referred ................. [Para 9.2.4]
Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 1995 (75) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.) — Referred ....................... [Para 8.7]
Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports — 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.)
— Referred ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 8.7]
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India — 1994 (74) E.L.T. 782 (S.C.) — Relied on ...........[Paras 8.7, 11.1, 11.4]
Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana — (2006) 3 SCC 620 — Referred ............. [Para 9.2.4]
MRF Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax — 2006 (206) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.)
— Referred ................................................................................................................................... [Para 9.2.4]
Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner — 2004 (178) E.L.T. 48 (S.C.) — Referred.............. [Para 8.7]
Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Electricity Board — (1997) 7 SCC 251
— Referred ................................................................................................................................... [Para 9.2.4]
Pournami Oil Mills, Etc. v. State of Kerala — 1987 (27) E.L.T. 594 (S.C.) — Referred ............... [Para 9.2.4]
R.K. Garg v. Union of India — (1981) 4 SCC 675 — Relied on............................................. [Paras 8.6.2, 13.5]
Sales Tax Officer v. Shree Durga Oil Mills — 1998 (97) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.) — Relied on ....... [Paras 8.7, 11.3]
Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P. — (2011) 3 SCC 193 — Relied on ...............[Paras 8.7, 11.3, 11.5]
Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat — 1987 (27) E.L.T. 572 (S.C.) — Referred............. [Para 9.2.4]
Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 452 (S.C.) — Relied on ..... [Paras 8.7, 11.2]
Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. ETIO — (2007) 5 SCC 447
— Referred ................................................................................................................................... [Para 9.2.4]
State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan — (2018) 17 SCC 394 — Relied on ................................... [Para 13]
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Prasad Verma — (2017) 5 SCC 665 — Relied on ................................... [Para 13.1]
State of Punjab v. Nestle India — (2004) 6 SCC 465 — Referred ................................................... [Para 9.2.4]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  106