Page 130 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

520 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

away any vested right conferred under the earlier notifications. The subsequent
notifications therefore are clarificatory in nature, since it declares the refund of
excise duty paid genuinely and paid on actual manufacturing of goods and not
on the duty paid on the goods manufactured only on paper and without under-
taking any manufacturing activities of such goods.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and once it is
held that the subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were impugned
before the respective High Courts are clarificatory in nature and are issued in
public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the
original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the
persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they do
not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifica-
tions/industrial policies and therefore cannot be said to be hit by the doctrine of
promissory estoppel, the same is to be applied retrospectively and they cannot be
said to be irrational and/or arbitrary.
16. Under the circumstances, the respective High Courts have commit-
ted a grave error in quashing and setting aside the subsequent notifica-
tions/industrial policies impugned before the respective High Courts on the
ground that they are hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and that they are
retrospective and not retroactive. Consequently, all these appeals are ALLOWED.
The impugned Judgments and Orders passed by the respective High Courts,
which are impugned in the present appeals, quashing and setting aside the sub-
sequent notifications/industrial policies impugned in the respective writ peti-
tions before the respective High Courts, are hereby quashed and set aside. Con-
sequently, the original writ petitions filed by the respective original writ peti-
tioners before the respective High Courts challenging the respective subsequent
notifications/industrial policies stand dismissed and for the reasons stated here-
inabove, the challenge to the respective subsequent notifications/industrial poli-
cies impugned before the respective High Courts FAIL. However, it is
CLARIFIED that the present judgment shall not affect the amount of excise duty
already refunded, meaning thereby, the cases in which the excise duty is already
refunded prior to the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned be-
fore the respective High Court, they are not to be reopened. However, it is fur-
ther CLARIFIED that the pending refund applications shall be decided as per the
subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were impugned before the
respective High Courts and they shall be decided in accordance with the law and
on merits and as per the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned
before the respective High Courts. All these appeals stand disposed of according-
ly. NO COSTS.
16.1 Now, so far as the Civil Appeals @ SLP © Nos. 14751/2013,
14752/2013 and 14753/2013 are concerned, the challenge to Notification Nos.
16/2008-C.E. and 33/2008-C.E. FAIL and the Excise authorities have in fact al-
lowed the refund of excise in line with the subsequent Notification Nos. 16/2008-
C.E. and 33/2008-C.E. which are now upheld by this Court, the present appeals
deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. NO COSTS.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  130