Page 129 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. V.V.F. LTD. 519

considered expedient in the public interest and with a laudable object of having
genuine industrialization in backward areas or the concerned areas, the subse-
quent notifications/industrial policies have been issued by the Government.
Therefore, the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned before the
respective High Courts were in the public interest and even issued after thor-
ough analysis of the cases of tax evasion and even after receipt of the reports. The
earlier notifications were issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act and
even the subsequent notifications which were issued in public interest and in the
interest of Revenue were also issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act,
which cannot be said to be bad in law, arbitrary and/or hit by the doctrine of
promissory estoppel.
14.2 The purpose of the original scheme was not to give benefit of re-
fund of the excise duty paid on the goods manufactured only on paper or in fact
not manufactured at all. As the purpose of the original notifications/incentive
schemes was being frustrated by such unscrupulous manufacturers who had
indulged in different types of tax evasion tactics, the subsequent notifica-
tions/industrial policies have been issued allowing refund of excise duty only to
the extent of duty payable on the actual value addition made by the manufactur-
ers undertaking manufacturing activities in these areas which is absolutely in
consonance with the incentive scheme and the intention of the Government to
provide the excise duty exemption only in respect of genuine manufacturing ac-
tivities carried out in these areas.
14.3 As observed hereinabove, the subsequent notifications/industrial
policies do not take away any vested right conferred under the earlier notifica-
tions/industrial policies. Under the subsequent notifications/industrial policies,
the persons who establish the new undertakings shall be continue to get the re-
fund of the excise duty. However, it is clarified by the subsequent notifications
that the refund of the excise duty shall be on the actual excise duty paid on actual
value addition made by the manufacturers undertaking manufacturing activities.
Therefore, it cannot be said that subsequent notifications/industrial policies are
hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The respective High Courts have
committed grave error in holding that the subsequent notifications/industrial
policies impugned before the respective High Courts were hit by the doctrine of
promissory estoppel. As observed and held hereinabove, the subsequent notifica-
tions/industrial policies which were impugned before the respective High Court
can be said to be clarificatory in nature and the same have been issued in the
larger public interest and in the interest of the Revenue, the same can be made
applicable retrospectively, otherwise the object and purpose and the intention of
the Government to provide excise duty exemption only in respect of genuine
manufacturing activities carried out in the concerned areas shall be frustrated. As
the subsequent notifications/industrial policies are “to explain” the earlier notifi-
cations/industrial policies, it would be without object unless construed retro-
spectively. The subsequent notifications impugned before the respective High
Courts as such provide the manner and method of calculating the amount of re-
fund of excise duty paid on actual manufacturing of goods. The notifications im-
pugned before the respective High Courts can be said to be providing mode on
determination of the refund of excise duty to achieve the object and purpose of
providing incentive/exemption. As observed hereinabove, they do not take
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  129