Page 120 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

510 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

9. Learned Senior Advocates/Counsel appearing on behalf of the re-
spective respondents-original writ petitioners before the High Court, while sup-
porting the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court
have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court has rightly set aside the impugned Notification No. 16 of 2008, dated
27-3-2008 on the ground that the withdrawal of exemption is retrospective and
not retro-active and also on the ground that the same is hit by the doctrine of
promissory estoppel.
9.1 Learned Senior Advocates/Counsel appearing on behalf of the re-
spective respondents-original writ petitioners have made the following submis-
sions :
9.1.1 A massive earthquake struck the Kutch district, in the State of Gu-
jarat on 26-1-2001 destroying virtually the entire industrial infrastructure in the
said district. With a view to revive the industry and to offer employment oppor-
tunities, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India announced incentives for
setting up new industries in the earthquake affected district of Kutch by issuing
Central Excise Exemption Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., dated 31-7-2001. The
Notification granted exemption for a period of five years from the date of com-
mencement of commercial production, to goods cleared from a new industrial
units set up in the Kutch District of Gujarat from so much of duty of excise as
was equivalent to the amount of duty paid in cash/PLA i.e. the duty paid on the
goods other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of Cenvat credit under
the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The incentive offered by the notification was the
refund of the total amount of Central Excise Duty paid in cash/PLA;
9.1.2 Respective original writ petitioners based on the promise held out
by the Government of India to refund the Central Excise Duty paid in cash/PLA
for a period of five years from the commencement of commercial production by
new industrial units set up in Kutch. They invested a very huge amount only in
view of the promise held out by the Government of India;
9.1.3 Explanatory Memorandum to the notification as also the Press Re-
lease issued by the Press Information Bureau record, that Ministry of Finance
had notified a scheme of exemption for the District of Kutch, in the State of Guja-
rat for a period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial pro-
duction. The then State Government on 9-11-2001 also announced a Sales Tax
incentive scheme, wherein it noted that the economic activity in the Kutch dis-
trict has come to a standstill on account of the devastating earthquake and that
new employment opportunities could be created if new investments take place.
Taking note of the Excise Duty exemption for the new industries announced by
the Government of India, the State Government also introduced a Sales Tax in-
centive scheme which would be available to only those industries which were
eligible for the Excise incentive;
9.1.4 Respondents-original writ petitioners were extended the benefit
of exemption promised by the Government of India from 26-12-2005 till 31-3-
2008 by way of the refund of the entire duty paid in cash/PLA.
It is submitted that therefore the impugned amendment by notification
No. 16 of 2008 violated the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
9.2 The following submissions have been made on the violation of
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel :
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  120