DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of appeals, identical grievance is made by the appellants, who are manufacturers of Pan Masala containing Tobacco. Their grievance is that by notification dated July 8, 1999, the Central Govt. in exercise of its power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise Goods of Special Importance Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Central Govt dated 24.12.1997 held out a promise to new industries to exempt the industry set up in the scheduled area from exemption from the excise duty. The Department of Central Govt had prematurely withdrawn concession of such exemption by issuing a notification dated 1.3.2001. It is this notification, which is impugned to these proceedings.

(2.) Various writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the said impugned notification. In the fore-front it was submitted that the Central Govt is bound by the principles of promissory estoppel to continue excise exemption to the new industries set up for a period of 10 years as integrated in the exemption notification from the date of establishment of the industry and consequently, the Central Govt could not have arbitrarily withdrawn the said excise exemption prior to expiry of 10 years period available to the industries concerned under the exemption notification and the policy decision of the Govt. The new Industrial Policy dated 24.12.1997 framed by the Govt of India after Expert Groups/Committees concretized the initiatives to be offered and after Inter Departmental Meetings were held having remained in force and has not been altered by the Govt, the Ministry of Finance is incompetent to unilaterally withdraw the concessions that was given by it in pursuance of the policy.

(3.) As questions involved were identical in all these writ petitions all the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by common judgement dated April 11, 2002 (2002 (2) GLJ 37), therefore, all these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge, hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.