Page 47 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A21

10-2019, i.e., after filing of aforesaid Writ Petition. The High Court while observ-
ing that main ground in the petition of allowing re-export no longer survives,
refused to grant waiver for demurrage on account of prolonged custody. The
High Court referred to its earlier detailed judgment dated 20th December, 2019
in W.P. (C) No. 7577 of 2019 in the case of Global Impex wherein guidelines for
levy and collection of demurrage by custodian in cases of belated clearances of
import consignments for different reasons, were laid down and ordered that pe-
titioner was bound to pay demurrage charges.
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Amrita Joshi & Ms. Prerana Agarwal, Advocates,
for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Amit Mahajan, CGSC & Satish Aggarwala,
Sr. Standing Counsel, Gitesh Chopra, Gagan Vaswani,
Amit Bansal, Aman Rewaria and Vipasha Mishra,
Advocates, for the Respondent.

Area based exemption granted to North-eastern industries
for specified period under Industrial Policy, 2007,
whether can be withdrawn/modified in between for
its misuse?

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai on 22-4-2020
dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19998 of 2013 with S.L.P. ….. CC
No. 1787 of 2014 filed by Barak Valley Cement Ltd. against the Judgment and
Order dated 20-11-2014 of Gauhati High Court in W.A. Nos. 243 & 230 of 2009
and W.P. (C) Nos. 2138, 3376-3377, 3387, 3940, 4869 of 2009, 4119, 2918, 4112 of
2010, 2468, 5968-5969, 6161 of 2012; 84, 104, 109, 187, 235, 239-240, 242, 279, 312,
319, 399, 410-411, 417, 457, 632, 809-811, 1151, 1153, 1242, 1472, 1975, 2660, 6685,
6698, 6786 of 2013; 317, 724, 723, 729, 1694, 1723, 2887, 1696, 3457-3458, 5444, 5538
of 2014 as reported in 2015 (320) E.L.T. 216 (Gau.) (Union of India v. Kamakhya
Cosmetics and Pharmaceuticals). While dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court
passed the following order :
“Both these petitions arise out of the Interlocutory Order passed by
the High Court of Guwahati in Writ Petition No. 1153/2013 and Writ Peti-
tion No. 1151/2013, by which the High Court has refused to grant the relief
as prayed for. It is reported that subsequently by the common judgment
and order dated 20-11-2014 [2015 (320) E.L.T. 216 (Gau.)], the High Court
has disposed of the main Writ Petition Nos. 1153 of 2013 and 1151 of 2013
also, and the final Judgment and Orders have also been challenged in the
group of matters being Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19386/2015 and Civil
Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 27046/2015, both these petitions stand dismissed as
having become infructuous.”
The Gauhati High Court in its order in main Writ Petition Nos. 1153 and
1151 of 2013 which is under challenge with Apex Court in the group of matters,
had held that the area based exemption of 100% Excise duty granted for 10 years
to industries set up in North-eastern region under Industrial Policy, 2007, could
not be withdrawn or modified limiting it to the extent of value addition with
varying rates of exemption on the ground of its misuse especially when the State
and the Department had machinery for detecting such misuse or malpractice of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  47