Page 122 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

512 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

9.5 The amendments to Notification No. 16/2008, dated 27-3-2008, No-
tification Nos. 33/2008, dated 10-6-2008 and 51/2008, dated 3-10-2008 clearly
show that the Government itself has jettisoned the concept of value addition, in-
troduced with effect from 27-3-2008, inasmuch as for finished goods whose start-
ing raw material was a natural product/mineral, and therefore subject to NIL
input stage duty, the refund in respect of final products using such inputs was
fixed at an arbitrary rate of 75% of the duty paid, without option of a special rate,
irrespective of the supposed value addition;
9.6 Mere misuse of the exemption notification by some of the manufac-
turers cannot justify the withdrawal of incentive since there is an adequate ma-
chinery available with the Revenue under the Central Excise Act and under the
notification itself, to curb, deduct, as well as punish the offenders for any such
misuse, otherwise the Revenue would suffer adverse consequences for no fault of
theirs. It is submitted that the notification itself specifically provides for recovery
of refunds along with interest if such refunds were wrongly claimed/granted. It
is submitted that therefore the so-called object and purpose for issuing the im-
pugned notification is irrational and arbitrary and as such cannot be a ground to
withdraw the earlier exemption notification.
Findings :
10. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has set
aside the subsequent Notification No. 16 of 2008, dated 27-3-2008 mainly on the
ground that the same is retrospective and not retro-active in nature and the same
is hit by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. It is the case on behalf of the Union
of India that the subsequent notification is as such in continuation of the earlier
notification and the same is clarificatory and therefore can be made applicable
retrospectively. It is also the case on behalf of the Union of India that the subse-
quent notification/amendment in the original notification did not in any way
alter the basis of the original first notification of 2001. It is also the case on behalf
of the Union of India that the subsequent notification of 2008 has been issued in
the public interest and has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the questions which are posed
for consideration of this Court are whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the subsequent notification which has been quashed and set aside by the
High Court being Notification No. 16 of 2008, dated 27-3-2008 can be said to be
clarificatory in nature and can it be said that it takes away the vested right con-
ferred pursuant to the earlier notification of 2001 and whether the same can be
made applicable retrospectively and whether the same has been issued in the
public interest and whether the same is hit by the Doctrine of Promissory Estop-
pel?
11. While considering the aforesaid questions and before considering
the nature of the subsequent notification of 2008, few decisions of this Court on
retrospectivity/clarificatory/applicability of promissory estoppel in the fiscal
statute are required to be referred to, which are as under :
11.1 In the case of Kasinka Trading (supra), in paragraphs 12, 20 and 23,
it is observed and held as follows :
“12. It has been settled by this Court that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel is applicable against the Government also particularly where it is
necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The doctrine, however,
cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government or the public
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  122