Page 110 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

500 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

3.7 The aforesaid writ petitions were opposed by the revenue by sub-
mitting as under :
(i) the Exemption Notification prompted certain unscrupulous manu-
facturers to indulge in different type of tax evasion tactics;
(ii) the intention behind the Exemption Notification was to incentivise
genuine manufacturers only to the extent of actual value addition
made by them;
(iii) duty paid in cash by units set up in District of Kutch pursuant to the
Exemption Notification was found to be inordinately high as com-
pared to other similarly placed units in other parts of India;
(iv) the Central Government by the very same power by which it grants
exemption is empowered to withdraw the same;
(v) the impugned notifications are only a modification to give effect to
the real intention of the Government and are not withdrawal of the
benefit; and
(vi) in light of the misuse of the exemption pleaded by UOI, public in-
terest warrants such withdrawal.
3.8 Simultaneously, the manufacturing units also filed representations
to the Government for re-consideration. Pursuant to the representations, one an-
other notification was issued by the Central Government vide Notification No.
33/2008-C.E., dated 10-6-2008. Therefore, the original writ petitioners amended
the writ petitions challenging the subsequent notification dated 10-6-2008 also. It
appears that thereafter the Central Government vide Notification No. 51/2008,
dated 3-10-2008 revised the deemed value addition at 75% in respect of the
products manufactured by the original writ petitioners without giving them any
option of applying for a special rate.
3.9 The aforesaid writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench. The
members of the Division Bench differed. One Learned Judge allowed the writ
petitions and another Learned Judge held that the writ petitions deserve to be
dismissed. In view of the difference of opinion between the two Learned Judges
of the Division Bench, the matter was referred to a third Learned Judge. By the
impugned judgment and order, the third Learned Judge has agreed with the
view taken by the Learned Judge who allowed the writ petitions. Consequently,
by the impugned judgment and order, the writ petitions are allowed mainly on
the ground of doctrine of promissory estoppel. Consequently, it is held by the
High Court that the incentive as originally envisaged by Notification No.
39/2001-C.E. was required to be implemented and the differential amount was
directed to be refunded to the writ petitioners. Hence, the present appeals.
Civil Appeals @ SLP © Nos. 14751 of 2013;
Civil Appeals @ SLP © Nos. 14752 of 2013; and
Civil Appeals @ SLP © Nos. 14753 of 2013
4. All these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 17-10-2012 in Special
Civil Application Nos. 3582/2012, 3569/2012 and 3587/2012 respectively, by
which the High Court has dismissed the said petitions.
Before the High Court, respective original writ petitioners claimed for re-
fund of the excise duty in terms of the original Notification No. 29 of 2001. The
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  110