Page 116 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

506 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Civil Appeal No. ……….. of 2020 @ SLP © No. 10257/2018,
Civil Appeal No. ……….. of 2020 @ SLP © No. 10253/2018,
Civil Appeal No. ……….. of 2020 @ SLP © No. 12148/2018, and
Civil Appeal No. ……….. of 2020 @ SLP © No. 12496/2018.
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Sikkim dated 21-11-2017 passed
in Writ Petition Nos. 8/2017, 27/2017, 40/2015 and 41/2015 respectively, by
which the High Court has quashed and set aside the subsequent Notification No.
20 of 2008 dated 27-3-2008, Notification No. 36 of 2008, dated 10-6-2008 and Noti-
fication No. 38 of 2008, dated 10-6-2008 on the ground that the same are hit by
the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Union of India has preferred the present
Appeals.
7.1 In line with the Industrial Policy, 2007, Notification No. 20/2008
was issued whereby with respect to the new undertakings established, the goods
were exempted from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was to the
equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods other than
the amount of duty paid by utilization of Cenvat credit. In the year 2008, subse-
quent notifications impugned before the High Court were issued, by which the
refund was allowable on the duty payable on the goods manufactured on value
addition basis, the same are set aside by the High Court by the impugned com-
mon judgment and order on the ground that the same are hit by the doctrine of
promissory estoppel. As otherwise, the submissions are common and the reasons
on which the High Court has set aside the impugned subsequent notifications
are similar to the facts in the case of Civil Appeals @ SLP © Nos. 28194-28201 of
2010, all these Appeals are also decided and disposed of by this common judg-
ment and order.
8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has ve-
hemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in quashing and
setting aside the Notification No. 16 of 2008, dated 27-3-2008 on the ground that
the same is retrospective and not retroactive and the same is barred by the doc-
trine of promissory estoppel.
8.1 It is submitted as under :
That the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or consid-
ered the notification impugned before it and as such the High Court has
misinterpreted and/or misread the Notification No. 16 of 2008. It is
submitted that the High Court has erred in treating and/or considering
the Notification No. 16 of 2008 as withdrawal of exemption benefit
and/or withdrawal of the incentive provided by notification dated 31-7-
2001. It is vehemently submitted that as such the impugned Notification
No. 16 of 2008 was clarificatory in nature and cannot be said to be with-
drawal of exemption benefit and/or withdrawal of the incentive provid-
ed earlier by notification dated 31-7-2001;
8.2 The High Court ought to have appreciated that the power of such a
kind to grant exemption from levy and collection of duty includes in itself the
power to rescind, modify or withdraw such exemption. It is submitted that the
liability to pay excise duty under the Central Excise Act arises when a taxable
event occurs. An exemption notification issued under Section 5A will not affect
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  116