Herbo Foundation Pvt. Ltd and Kamakhya Cosmetics and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Icon Household Products Private Limited and R.C.L. Cements and Vinay Cements Limited and Guwahati Carbon Limited and Brahmaputra Carbon Limited and Manaksia Ltd. and PDP Steels Limited and Digboi Carbon (P) Ltd. and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd and Dharampal Premchand Ltd and Avichal Buildcon Pvt Ltd and Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd and Godrej Sara Lee Limited and Ozone Ayurvedics and Ozone Ayurvedics (Unit II) and Ozone Pharmaceuticals Limited and S.C. Johnson Products Private Limited and N.E. Thermion Private Limited V. Union of India & Ors

WP(C)/2143/2008

AI Insights

This case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various companies challenging the amendments made to the excise duty exemption notifications under the 1997 Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR). The petitioners argued that these amendments, particularly Notification No.17/2008, which restricted the excise duty refund to the actual value added by the manufacturers, violated the promises made under the 1997 IPR. The respondents, representing the government, defended the amendments as necessary to prevent misuse of the exemptions and to ensure that only genuine manufacturers benefited from the policy. The court examined the legal principles of promissory estoppel and the specific provisions of the 1997 IPR and related notifications to arrive at its decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 698586 (HC-ASSAM)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Companies Act, 1956, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Rules, 1944
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K N CHOUDHURY; R DUBEY; R DEKA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SARAF; D BARUAH; M L GOPE; S CHETIA
• Keywords: 1997 IPR; 2007 IPR; CENVAT credit; Excise duty exemption; Promissory Estoppel; Value addition
• Section: 9; 173G

Judgement Text

"WP(C) 2143/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI WP(C) 2143/2008 1. Herbo Foundation Pvt. Ltd A Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered office and factory situated at Shed Nos. 21, 22, 23, & 24, Indus trial Estate, bamunimaidan, Guwahati- 781021 (Assam) represented by Sri Samit Gh atak, the Commercial Manager of the petitioner Company and resident of Shed Nos. 21, 22, 23 & 24, Industrial Estate, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati- 781021 - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India & Ors Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Office of the Assistant Commissioner Of Central Excise, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 781005, Assam - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2 Mr. D.Baruah, 3 Ms. ML Gope, 4 Mr. S. Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury, Sr. Advocate 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 2. WP(C) 1707/2008 1. Kamakhya Cosmetics and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.11 & 12, Industrial Area, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21, represented through its Constituted attorney and authorized Signatory, Sri Debajit Debroy. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. 5. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 6. The Secretary to Govt. of Assam, Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr. Advocate, 5 Mr. D.Baruah, 6 Ms. ML Gope, 7 Mr. S. Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury, Sr. Advocate 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 3. WP(C) 2334 / 2008 1. Icon Household products Private limited, A company incorporated under the Companied Act, 1956 having its Registered Offic e at plot No.A-103, PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettupalayam, Pondicherry-605009; having one of its Units at B-5(A&B), B-6(A&B), C2(A), Rani Industrial Area, Rani, Kamrup, Assam; Represented by its Authorised Signatory and Business Manager (Guwahati Operations), Sri Rajesh S. Prasad - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. Division, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-5 5. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 6. The Secretary to Govt. of Assam, Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. Satyen Sarma, 8 Mr. Jayanta Deka, 9 Ms. Amlan Sarma, 10 Mr. Tarun Krishna Bhuyan Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 4.WP(C) 2335 / 2008 1. R.C.L. CEMENTS, A company incorporated under the Companied Act, 1956 having its Registered Offic e at Silpukhri, Guwahati and factory situated at Jamunanagar, Umrangso in the District of N.C.Hills, Assam-788931 represented by Sri Subhankar Ghosh, the authorized signatory of the petitioner Company and resident of Silpukhri, Guwahati - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Shillong Division Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Central ExciseDivision, Shillong - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 5.WP(C) 2337 / 2008 1. Icon Household products Private limited, A company incorporated under the Companied Act, 1956 having its Registered Offic e at plot No.A-103, PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettupalayam, Pondicherry-605009; having one of its Units at B-5(A&B), B-6(A&B), C2(A), Rani Industrial Area, Rani, Kamrup, Assam; Represented by its Authorised Signatory and Business Manager (Guwahati Operations), Sri Rajesh S. Prasad - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. Division, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-5 5. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 6. The Secretary to Govt. of Assam, Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. Satyen Sarma, 2. Mr. Jayanta Deka, 3. Ms. Amlan Sarma, 4. Mr. Tarun Krishna Bhuyan Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 6. WP(C) 2464 / 2008 1. A company incorporated under the Companied Act, 1956 having its Register ed Office situated at Purana Titabor, In the district of Jorhat, Assam and its factory at Borera Gaon, P.O. Titabor Dist-Jorhat, Assam represented by Sri Inder Gattani, the Director of the petitioner Company and resident of Titabor, in the District of Jorhat, Assam. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Shillong Division Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Central ExciseDivision, Shillong - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 7. WP(C) 2465 / 2008 A company incorporated under the Companied Act, 1956 having its Registered Offic e situated at Esplande Manision, Government place, East, Kolkota-700069 in the State of West Bengal and its factory situated at Bonda Narengi, Assam represented by Sri Mishrilal Rajak, the Deputy Manager(Accounts) Of the petitioner Company and resident of Hatigaon Chariali Sijoo Bari Road, Guwahati-781038 - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Shillong Division Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Central ExciseDivision, Guwahati Division - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 8. WP(C) 2466 / 2008 A company incorporated under the Companied Act, 1956 having its Registered Offic e situated at Esplande Manision, Government place, East, Kolkota-700069 in the State of West Bengal and its factory situated at Bonda Narengi, Assam represented by Sri Mishrilal Rajak, the authorized signatory of the petitioner Company and resident of Hatigaon Chariali Sijoo Bari Road, Guwahati-781038 - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Shillong Division Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Central ExciseDivision, Guwahati Division - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 9. WP(C) 2150/ 2008 A private Limited Company within the meaning of The Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office and factory at Industrial Estate, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-781021 represented by Shri Kishaloy Purkayastha, authorized representative of the petitioner Company and resident of Kahilipara colony, Guwahati-781038. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, G.S.Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-781005, Assam - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr. Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury, Sr. Advocate 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 10. WP(C) 2211/ 2008 A private Limited Company having its Registered Office at Stephen House, 6A, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkota-700001 and its manufacturing unit situated at EPIP Complex, Amingaon, Guwahati represented by its authorized signatory Sri Jaswant Sethia, a resident of Nilgiri Apartment, Adabari Tiniali Guwahati. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, G.S.Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-781005, Assam - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 11. WP(C) 2328/ 2008 VINAY CEMENTS LIMITED A company incorporated under the provisions Companied Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office and factory situated at Jamunanagar, Umrangso in the District of N.C.Hills, Assam-788931 represented by Sri Subhankar Ghosh, the authorized signatory of the petitioner Company and resident of Silpukhri, Guwahati. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Shillong Division Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Central ExciseDivision, Shillong. - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1 Mr. KN Choudhury 2 Mr. R.Dubey 3 Mr.R.Deka 12. WP(C) 2507/ 2008 Guwahati Carbon Limited, Pub-Boragaon, Mouza-Jalukbari, Dist: Kamrup, Guwahati represented through its Director, Shri Jagadish Chandra Paul. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. 5. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 6. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. RK Choudhury,Advocate, 2. Mr. AK Gogoi Advocates for Respondents 1 Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 13. WP(C) 2508/ 2008 Brahmaputra Carbon Limited, Industrial Eastate, New Bongaigaon, Assam-783380 represented through its constituted attorney and authorized signatory, Syed Jakir Hussain. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. 5. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 6. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. RK Choudhury,Advocate, 2. Mr. AK Gogoi Advocates for Respondents 1 Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 14. WP(C) 2481/ 2008 M/S Manaksia Ltd. duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956, duly represented by one of its Directors Sri Mahabir Prasad Agrawal, S/o Late Jamuna Prasad Agrawal, having its Registered Office at 8/1, Lalbazar Street, Bikaner Building Kolkotta 700001 and having its Industrial Unit Export Promotion Industrial Park, Amingaon, Guwahati, State of Assam. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) North Block, Central Secretariat,New Delhi 2. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong having office at Morellow Compound, Shillong-793001 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati Division, having office at Guwahati, State of Assam. Central Excise, Guwahati. 5. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. A. Roy ,Advocate, 2. Mr. S. Bhuyan Advocates for Respondents 1 Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 15. WP(C) 2467/ 2008 PDP STEELS LIMITED A company incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office located at Esplande Manison, Government Place East, Kolkota-700069 in the State of West Bengal and its factory situated at Bonda, Narengi, Assam, Represented by Sri Mishri Lal Rajak, the authorized signatory Of the petitioner Company and resident of Hatigaon Chariali, Sijoo Bari Road, Guwahati-781038. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong Division, Shillong Commissionerate, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Shillong Division Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Central ExciseDivision, Guwahati Division. - Respondents Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1. Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 16. WP(C) 2510/ 2008 Digboi Carban (P) Ltd. Industrial Estate, P.O Borguri, Tinsukia, Assam, represented through its Director, Shri Jagadish Chandra Paul. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. 5. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 6. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. RK Choudhury,Advocate, 2. Mr. AK Gogoi Advocates for Respondents 1 Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 17. WP(C) 2718/ 2008 1. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, (Guwahati Unit) a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and havin g its registered Office at 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006. 2. M/S Dharampal Premchand Ltd, (Agartala Units) a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and havin g its registered Office at 4873, Chandani Chowk, Delhi-110006. 3. M/S Avichal Buildcon Pvt Ltd, (Guwahati Unit), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, and having it s registered Office at 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006. 4. M/S Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd, (Agartala Unit), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, and having it s registered Office at 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006. - Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, through the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), North Block, New Delhi 2. Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Through the Secretary to the Government of India, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Silchar 5. State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 6. State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Agartala, Tripura. Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. SK Medhi, Advocate, 2. Mr. RK Bharali, 3. Mr. A. Islam Advocates for Respondents 1 Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 2 G.A. Assam, 3 G.A. Tripura 18. WP(C) 3070/ 2008 M/s Godrej Sara Lee Limited A company incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Pirozesha Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East) Mumbai-400079 and one of its factories at Byelane 5, No.38 Industrial Eastate, Bamunimaidam Guwahati 781021 - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong Division, Shillong Commissionerate, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, G.S Road, Bhangagarh, Assam. Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1. Mr. KN Choudhury, Sr. Advocate. 19. WP(C) 187/ 2009 M/s Ozone Ayurvedics, A proprietorship firm having its factory At EPIP, Amingaon, Guwahati-31, Kamrup, Assam - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong Division, Shillong Commissionerate, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, G.S Road, Bhangagarh, Assam. Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. S. Shyam, Advocate, 2. Mr. A. Dhar, 3. Ms. RB Deka Advocates for Respondents 2. Mr. B. Sarma Sr.SC, Excise Deptt. 20. WP(C) 189/ 2009 M/s Ozone Ayurvedics (Unit II) A proprietorship firm having its factory At EPIP, Amingaon, Guwahati-31, Kamrup, Assam - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong Division, Shillong Commissionerate, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, G.S Road, Bhangagarh, Assam. Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. S. Shyam, Advocate, 2. Mr. A. Dhar, 3. Ms. RB Deka Advocates for Respondents 3. Mr. B. Sarma Sr.SC, Excise Deptt. 21. WP(C) 195/ 2009 M/s Ozone Pharmaceuticals Limited A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at EPIP, Amingaon, Guwahati-31, Kamrup, Assam - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong Division, Shillong Commissionerate, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, G.S Road, Bhangagarh, Assam. Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. S. Shyam, Advocate, 2. Mr. A. Dhar, 3. Ms. RB Deka Advocates for Respondents 4. Mr. B. Sarma Sr.SC, Excise Deptt. 22. WP(C) 3724/ 2008 M/s S.C.Johnson Products Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office located M-69, M-Block Market, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 and its unit 4 situated at Bonda Industrial area, Guwahati (Assam) and the unit 6 situated at Baminimaidan Industrial area, Guwahati (Assam) represented by Mr.Aroop Aditya, the authorized signatory of the petitioner company and resident of C.P.B. Road, Pub Sarania, Byelane 6, Chandmari, Guwahati. - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. Central Board of Excise & Customs, North Block, New Delhi. 5. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati. 6. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati. 7. Superintendent of Central Excise, Guwahati. 8. State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 9. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Department of Industries & Commerce, Dispur, Guwahati-6 Advocates for Petitioner 1 Mr. MP Devnath, Advocate, 2. Mr. B. Sarma Advocates for Respondents 1. Mr. KN Choudhury, Sr. Advocate 23. WP(C) 1535/ 2008 M/s N.E. Thermion Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office located at 75/B, Annada Bhawan, GS Road, Ulubari, Guwahati-781 and represented by Shri Jugal Kishore Mahanta, Managing Director of the petitioner company and resident of Usha Court, R.G Baruah Road, Guwahati-781024 - Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 3. The Joint-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi 4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. ,The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong Division, Shillong Commissionerate, Old Peak Hotel Complex, Morellow Compound, M.G.Road, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Office of the Assistant Commissioner Of Central Excise, Dibrugarh Division, C.R.Building, P.O Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003 Advocates for Petitioner 1 Dr. AK Saraf, Sr.Advocate, 2. Mr. D.Baruah, 3. Ms. ML Gope, 4. Mr. S.Chetia Advocates for Respondents 1. Mr. B. Sarma, S/C Central Excise. BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Dates of hearing :: 22.01.2009, 26.02.2009, 23.03.2009, 03.04.2009 & 05.05.2009 Date of judgment & Order :: 24.06.2009. JUDGMENT & ORDER By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of all these writ petiti ons inasmuch as all these writ petitions, involving identical facts and having r aised same questions of law for determination, have been heard together on the r equest made by the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In order to correctly appreciate as to what the grievances of the petiti oners are, what reliefs they have sought for and on what basis, the respondents resist the writ petitions, certain material facts, not being in dispute, are set out as under: (i) Taking into account the continuing backwardness of the North-Eastern reg ion, it was felt by the Government of India that a new synergetic incentive pack age would stimulate development of industries, for, such incentive package would attract investors. Thus, with a view to fostering industrial growth in North-Ea stern region, the then Prime Minister of India made, on 27.10.96, at Guwahati, a statement that new incentives would be announced for industrial development of the North-Eastern region. Expert groups/committees were accordingly constituted to concretize the initiatives. By a notification, dated 24.12.1997, Government o f India, eventually, announced a new Industrial Policy Resolutions (hereinafter referred to as ’1997 IPR’) containing a package of incentives and concessions fo r the investors in the North-Eastern region. As a measure of fiscal incentives, Government approved conversion of the growth centers into total tax free zones f or a period of ten years. All industrial activities, in these zones, were to be, under the 1997 IPR, free from payment of income tax and excise duty for a perio d of ten years from the date of commencement of production and the State Governm ents were to be requested to grant exemptions in respect of sales and municipal taxes. The 1997 IPR also announced that the Ministry of Finance, Government of I ndia, would be moved to amend the existing rules/notifications for giving effect to the decisions embodied in the IPR. Apart from exemption from, inter alia, pa yment of income tax and excise duty, the 1997 IPR envisaged various other incent ives and concessions like capital investment subsidy, interest subsidy, assistan ce in obtaining term loan as well as working capital, etc. (ii) In terms of the promises made by the Government of India under the 1997 IPR, various notifications conferring benefits, in tune with the promises made i n the 1997 IPR, were issued by various departments of the Central Government. In so far as exemption from payment of central excise duty was concerned, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, brought out notificatio ns No.32/99-CE and 33/99-CE, both dated 08.07.99, granting exemption in respect of certain specified excisable goods from a unit located in the Growth Center or Integrated Infrastructure Development Center or Export Promotion Industrial Par k or Industrial Estates or Industrial area or Commercial Estate, as the case may be. The exemption from payment of excise or additional excise duty was to be eq uivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the accoun t current maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rule s, 1944. The exemption, contained in the said notifications, were made applicabl e to new industrial units, which commenced their commercial production on or aft er 24.12.1997. The excise duty exemption, as declared under the said notificatio ns, were also to be applicable to those industrial units, which existed even bef ore 24.12.1997, but which undertook substantial expansion by way of increase in the installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 24.12.1997. The exemptio n, contained in the said notifications, were made applicable to the industrial u nits of such descriptions, as mentioned hereinbefore, for a period of 10 (ten) y ears from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production, whichever was earlier. (iii) Some of the writ petitioners, in the present set of writ petitions, clai m to have set up, acting upon the promises made in the 1997 IPR and taking into account the relevant notifications issued in this regard, industries for manufac ture of various commercial products, which the said notifications, granting exem ption from payment of excise duty, had envisaged. Another set of writ petitioner s plead that their industrial units had already existed, when the 1997 IPR came into force and, acting upon the incentives promised, they made substantial expan sion by increasing the installed capacity of their respective industrial units t o the extent as mentioned in the relevant notifications. (iv) In course of time, the petitioners were granted certificates of eligibil ity showing that they were entitled to receive various exemptions from payment o f excise duty, which was, otherwise, leviable on their products. In fact, many o f the petitioners, having set up their industries, started receiving refund of c entral excise duty in terms of the notifications issued in this regard. Those, w ho claim to have expanded the installed capacity of their respective industrial units, in terms of the relevant notifications, too claim that they are entitled to receive refund of excise duty in terms of the notifications aforementioned. (v) Be it mentioned that the earliest notification No.32/99-CE, dated 08.07. 99, aforementioned, whereby exemption from payment of central excise duty was gr anted, underwent several amendments. Notwithstanding such issuance of subsequent notifications, the petitioners claim that they have had remained entitled to, a nd had, in fact, been receiving, full excise duty exemption. Thus, the basic in centives, which had, according to the petitioners, lured the petitioners to set up their respective industries, in Assam, continued without any modification. (vi) As already indicated, a new industrial unit was, under the notification No.32/99-CE, dated 08.07.99, entitled to refund of excise duty equivalent to the amount of the duty paid by the manufacturer for the finished goods from the acc ount current maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise R ules, 1944. However, in the year 2001, the CENVAT Credit Rules were framed simpl ifying the credit provisions, and procedure for availing credit of the duty paid on input and capital goods used, whether directly or indirectly, in, or in resp ect of, manufacture of final products. The credit of the duty, so allowed, coul d be used for payment of excise duty leviable on the finished goods subject to t he conditions laid down in the relevant Rules. The basic object of allowing cred it on CENVAT was to ensure that there is no cascading effect of levy of excise d uty. The Rules framed aimed at collecting excise duty on the finished goods and thereby the manufacturer of finished goods were enabled to take credit of the d uty paid on the inputs or the capital goods used in the manufacture of finished products and could utilize the said credit for payment of excise duty on the fin al finished products. (vii) Some of the manufacturers did not, however, utilize the CENVAT for payme nt of excise duty on the finished goods; they rather, continued to make full pay ment of excise duty on finished products through the account current and claimed refund of the same. Such manufacturers, thus, allowed the CENVAT credit to be accumulated in their books of account with the object of utilizing the same at a latter stage. In other words, instead of utilizing the CENVAT credit, some of t he manufacturers continued to make full payment of excise duty on finished produ cts through the account current and claimed refund of the same. They let the CEN VAT credit to so accumulate with the object of utilizing the same after expiry o f a period of 10 years of exemption. This apart, the manufacturers, who did not use the CENVAT credit, were able to utilize the accumulated amount for payment of excise duty on such products, which were not eligible for exemption under the Notification Nos. 32/99-CE and/or 33/99-CE aforementioned. Since the inputs, i n respect of which CENVAT credit had been taken, were to be utilized in the manu facture of finished goods, which were eligible for exemption as per Notification Nos.32/99-CE and 33/99-CE, dated 08.07.99, the CENVAT credit, in respect of suc h inputs, could not have been utilized for payment of excise duty in respect of finished products, which were not eligible for exemption under the said notifica tions, dated 08.07.99. Similarly, the act of accumulating CENVAT credit (in resp ect of the inputs, used in the manufacture of finished products, eligible for ex emption, under Notification Nos.32/99-CE and 33/99-CE), with the object of utili zation the same for payment of excise duty after expiry of the period of ten yea rs of promised exemption, was against the spirit of Notification Nos.32/99-CE an d 33/99-CE aforementioned as well as 1997 IPR. The modus operandi, so adopted, would have, thus, defeated the aim and objectives of the 1997 IPR. The Notifica tion No.32/99-CE, dated 08.07.99, was, therefore, amended by Notification No.35/ 2001-CE, dated 29.06.2001. By the Notification, dated 29.06.2001, aforementioned , it was made clear that those industries, which were, otherwise, exigible to ex cise duty, shall be eligible for refund of the amount of duty paid other than th e duty paid by utilization of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001. The effect of the Notification, dated 29.06.2001, aforementioned, thus, did two things, namely, (a) it required the manufacturers to, first, utilize CENVAT cre dit towards payment of excise duty on the inputs and, (b) it made the eligible i ndustries entitled to receive refund of only such amount of excise duty, which w ere paid after utilization of the CENVAT credit. Similar amendments were introd uced in the notification No.33/99-CE too. In course of time, Notification No.32/ 99-CE was, again, amended by Notification No.61/2002-CE, dated 23.12.2002, where by a proviso was added to Clause (b) of the second paragraph making it clear tha t the refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the CENVAT credit ava iled off in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used or in respect of the man ufacture of goods cleared under Notification No.32/99-CE. The Notification No.32 /99-CE underwent yet another amendment by notification No.65/2003-CE, dated 06.0 8.2003. (viii) In the Notification, dated 06.08.2003, aforementioned, paragraph 1A was inserted, which read as under: In cases where all the goods produced by a manufacturer are eligible for exempt ion under this notification, the exemption contained in this notification shall be available subject to the condition that the manufacturer first utilize whole of the CENVAT credit available to him on the last day of the month under conside ration for payment of duty on goods cleared during such month and pays only the balance amount in cash. The proviso to Clause (b) of paragraph 2 was also substituted by the following: Provided that in cases, where the exemption contained in this notification is n ot applicable to some of the goods produced by a manufacturer, such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT credit availed of, in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation the manufa cture of goods cleared under this Notification. (ix) The amendments, so introduced, made it mandatory for a manufacturer of t hose goods, which were made eligible for exemption under Notification No.32/99-C E, to, first, utilize the CENVAT credit available to him on the last day of the month under consideration for payment of duty on goods cleared during such month and to pay balance amount only in cash. The substituted proviso further took ca re to see that refund is not claimed in respect of the duty paid on goods, which were not eligible for exemption. (x) Before expiry of the 1997 IPR, the Government of India announced a new indus trial policy resolution by a Memorandum, dated 01.04.2007, namely, North-East In dustrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (NEIIPP), (hereinafter referred t o as the ’2007 IPR’), whereunder a package of fiscal concessions and other conce ssions for the North-Eastern region were promised. (xi) Under the 2007 IPR too, the incentives were promised in respect of those industrial units, which were to be set up, on coming into force of the 2007 IPR , as well as those industrial units, which had existed before coming into force of the 2007 IPR, but which would undertake substantial expansion of their respec tive industrial units, in terms of the requirement of the 2007 IPR. In terms of the promises made by the 2007 IPR, requisite notification, making the promised e xcise duty exemption available for the industrial units, was issued on 25.04.200 7, the Notification being 20 of 2007, dated 25.04.2007. On the question of exci se duty exemption, Clause (v) of 2007 IPR mentions thus: hundred percent excise duty exemption will be continued on finished products made in the North-Eastern Region as was available in NEIP, 1997. (xii) The IPR 2007 made it clear that the 1997 IPR and other concessions, made thereunder, in the North-Eastern Region, announced by the Office Memorandum, da ted 24.12.97, would cease to operate with effect from 01.04.2007, but the Indust rial Units, which had commenced commercial production, on or before 31.03.2007, would continue to receive benefits/incentives under the NEIP, 1997 (i.e., 1997 I PR) until expiry of the promised period of ten years from the respective date of commencement of their commercial production. (xiii) In the present set of writ petitions, thus, there are four distinct cate gories of investors, namely, (i) those, who had set up their industrial units un der the 1997 IPR and claim 100% exemption from payment of excise duty; (ii) thos e, who had in existence such industrial units, as specified under the 1997 IPR, when the 1997 IPR came into force, but undertook substantial expansion as were r equired under the 1997 IPR and, having made such substantial expansion, they cla im to be entitled to the benefits as were promised and assured to them by the 19 97 IPR; (iii) those, who have set up their respective industrial units under th e 2007 IPR and claim to be entitled to receive such benefit as were promised and assured to them under the 2007 IPR; and (iv) those, who have expanded the insta lled capacity of their respective industrial units to the extent as were necessa ry under the 2007 IPR, and claim, therefore, to have become entitled to receive the benefits as were promised and assured to them by the 2007 IPR. All these pet itioners claim to have commenced their commercial production in terms of the rel evant IPRs, namely, 1997 IPR and 2007 IPR, as the case may be. The petitioners claim that having established their industrial units, or having expanded their i ndustrial units, and having started production from such industrial units within the prescribed period, they had been receiving, without any interruption, 100% refund of the amount of excise duty paid in terms of the notification Nos.32/99- CE, 33/99-CE and 25.04.2007. (xiv) The grievance of the petitioners is that with the help of the Notificati on No.17/2008, dated 27.03.2008, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of India has amended the notification, dated 32/99-CE, aforementioned and by the notification, dated 27.03.2008, the excise duty refund has been restrict ed to the maximum limits as specified in the rate column of the table appended t o the said notification, whereunder different rates of maximum limits of exempti on have been specified in respect of different goods. For instance, the goods pr oduced by the petitioners, as stated in WP(C) No.2143/2008, fall under Chapter 8 5 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The maximum limits of excise duty refund in respect of such goods would, now, be 31%, whereas, accordi ng to the petitioners, in WP(C) No. 2143/2008, they were entitled to receive 100 % refund as had been promised under the 1997 IPR and also the subsequent notific ations issued in this regard. The petitioners have, therefore, impugned the not ification, dated 27.03.2008, aforementioned by contending, inter alia, that the amendments, which the notification No.32/99-CE, dated 08.07. 1999, had undergone , continued to provide the promised exemption of excise duty without any curtail ment except that the Government, with the help of the amendments, which were mad e, took care to ensure that the benefit of exemption was not used for purposes o ther than what the 1997 IPR and the exemption notifications had envisaged, but t he impugned notification, dated 27.03.2008, has changed the entire scenario by r educing promised limit of exemption inasmuch the exemptions were, until before t he issuance of the impugned notification, available to the extent of 100%, where as the impugned notification reduces the same to a limited percentage. 3. Before proceeding further, it may be appropriate to point out that justi fying the issuance of the impugned notifications, the respondents alleged that s ome unscrupulous manufacturers showing bogus production and thereby gaining undu e benefit in the form of excise duty exemption and, it was for this reason, that the impugned notifications have been issued without affecting the interest of t he genuine manufacturers. The respondents further clarified by reiterating that the genuine manufacturers would continue to receive exemption from payment of ex cise duty to the same extent as they were entitled to receive and had, in fact, been receiving under the earlier notifications. The respondents claim that the 1 997 IPR and the notifications, earlier issued thereunder, all aimed at giving ex emption from payment of excise duty to the extent of value addition and not anyt hing beyond and this exemption remains still available with the genuine manufact urers. In this regard, in their affidavit, the respondents justify the issuance of the impugned notification in the following words: 7. An analysis of cases booked by the Excise department and the representations received from the Industry Associations has revealed that the following modus o perandi is broadly being followed. i. Reporting of bogus production by mere issuance of sale invoices without actua l production of goods and supply/ clearance of excisable goods. This would resul t in availment of cenvat credit by buyers of such excisable goods in other parts of the country without actual production being carried out and in absence of ac tual receipt of goods. ii. Reporting of bogus production by such units in these areas where actual production takes place elsewhere in the country. iii. Over valuation of goods resulting in availment of excess of credit by bu yer. IV. Goods are supplied by manufacturers, importers to these units without issuan ce of sales invoice and these are backed by bogus sale invoices issued by trader s who do not undertake actual supply of goods. The actual supplier of these good s issue bogus duty paid invoices to other manufacturers who take credit based on such invoices without receipt of goods. To elaborate the above modus operandi, I beg to give the following illustration. Illustration 1: - A Unit in North east reports fictitious production of Rs 100, which has actually not taken place and pays full duty of Rs.16/- in cash. It is submitted that obviously there is no Cenvat credit available in as much no input or raw material has been purchased by him. Such a purchaser claims full refund from the Government under the scheme. No-doubt one can argue that there is no lo ss to the Government as the Government has collected Rs.16/- and refunded only t he same amount. However, the fact remains that the said manufacturer issues sale s invoices showing excise duty payment to another buyer/manufacturer in other pa rts of the country entitling and making the buyer eligible to take Cenvat credit of Rs.16/-. The subsequent buyer/ manufacturer utilizes this credit of Rs.16/ - for payment of excise duty on goods manufactured by him and as a result, he pay s excise duty less in cash to the extent of Rs.16/ - for which Cenvat credit tho ugh ineligible (on account of actual non production of goods) is availed by him. In this way, there is a clear loss to the Government of Rs.16/- and the manufac turer in North East illegally gains that amount as he is recovering this amount from his customers. Illustration 2: - If an input valued at Rs.100/- is manufactured in Ahmedabad an d cleared on payment of duty of Rs.14/ - to a unit in the North East, who in tur n makes a value addition of Rs.50/-, in such a case the Government wants to give excise duty refund of Rs.7/- to the unit in North East on the value addition of Rs.50/- and to this extent the product manufactured in North East should become cheaper by Rs.7/-. However, if the same manufacturer in North East shows the pu rchase of these inputs from a trader on a non duty paid invoice which is in fact a non duty paid invoice, in that case, he pays a total duty of Rs 21 in cash i. e. excise duty at 14% on Rs.150/- (the sum total of Rs.100/- because of input an d Rs.50/- value addition as mentioned hereinabove) and gets the refund of Rs.21/ - after paying duty in cash from the personal ledger account. At the same time, such manufacturer recovers a duty ofRs.21/›from his customers and gives him the net benefit ofRs.21/- entitled to be claimed as Cenvat credit against the intend ed benefit of Rs.7/- which should be the only entitlement. In other words, the G overnment has to give refund for the goods manufactured in other parts of the co untry as a result of manipulation indulged into by such a manufacturer. These are general illustrations of misuse exemption given by the Government , which was meant to be available only for genuine manufacturers. Your humble applicant submits that by adopting such modus operandi, the unit in these areas were wanting to pay maximum amount of duty in cash so that t hey become entitled to a claim of refund of entire amount of duty paid in cash. In order to verify this aspect, a study has been made by the Excise department o n receipt of information from the Director General, Central Excise Intelligence and other such agencies to find out the percentage of excise duty paid in cash a nd from the Cenvat Credit account by the units availing this area based exemptio n. On receipt of these details they were compared with the duty payment details of the same industry groups for all the units across the country to find out whe ther the percentage of duty paid by the units in cash in the specified areas is comparable with the units in the rest of the country. An analysis of these detai ls, clearly shows that the industry sectors in the specified areas were paying a very high percentage of duty in cash i.e. through Personal Ledger Account in co mparison to the all India, payment of duty through PLA on similar goods. It is s ubmitted that had these units in the specified areas paid excise duty without in dulging in deliberate manipulations, as referred to hereinabove, there was no re ason why the cash portion of the excise duty in the specified region would be so alarmingly high vis a vis the payment of excise duty by cash by in respect of s imilar product in the rest of the country. The above analysis coupled with the d etails of the cases booked by the Excise department as well as the details recei ved on representations of Industry associations, which were adversely affected d ue to unfair competition, further prove the fact of general tendency of manufact urer in specified areas who indulge in such manipulative tactics by issuing eith er bogus production or bogus purchase of raw materials from traders. Such analys is clearly brings out the fact that there was a misuse of the excise duty exempt ion which was considered expedient in public interest and given by the Central G overnment with a laudable object of having genuine industrialization in either b ackward areas or areas like North East. Misuse of excise duty exemption being ra mpant and the effect of such manipulative acts which were brought to the notice of the Government was to defeat the purpose, policy and intention of the Governm ent to provide excise duty exemption only in respect of genuine manufacturing ac tivities carried out in these areas. The entire genesis of the policy manifestin g the intention of the Government to grant excise duty exemption was to provide such exemption only to actual value addition made in these areas. It is in backg round of these facts and with a view to give effect to such a policy, the Govern ment in exercise of the powers conferred under section SA has modified the refun d mechanism so as to provide that excise duty refund would be allowed only to th e extent of duty payable on actual value addition made by manufacturers undertak ing manufacturing activities in these areas. As a result of the above said modif ication, manufacturers are required to pay duty on the full value of goods manuf actured and cleared by them in the same manner as per existing scheme but refund would be granted only to the extent of duty paid on the actual value addition m ade by them in these specified areas. That as a result of such modification which has been considered by the Central Government to be expedient in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue , such a modification has been brought out. The effect of such modification is a s follows: i. It is submitted that genuine manufacturers are not likely to be affected inasmuch as they would be getting the refund of same amount under the scheme be fore and after the modification, because if the inputs are duty paid then the re fund under the earlier scheme and modified scheme should be of the same amount. ii. Unscrupulous manufacturers reporting bogus production and who are resort ing to fictitious purchase of inputs on the strength of invoices which are non d uty paid invoices would be getting excise duty refund of duty paid on actual val ue addition made by such manufacturers who have industries in these specified ar eas. iii. The excise duty exemption would be available only to the extent of actua l value addition made in these areas and not for the value of raw material manuf actured in other part of the country, which are received by the units in these a reas without cover of duty paying invoices. 4. By way of an additional affidavit, the respondents have also placed on r ecord the notification, dated 10.06.2008, whereby some further amendments to the earlier notification No.31/2008, dated 27.03.2008, has been introduced. In this regard, the respondents submit that following the impugned notification, dated 27.03.2008, many representations were received from different industrial bodies and associations and, after considering their grievances, Government of India, M inistry of Finance, has issued the notification, dated 10.06.2008, aforementione d, under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, modifying some of the Claus es of the earlier impugned notification, dated 27.03.2008, to take care of some of the grievances of the industries. 5. It may be pointed out that the subsequent notification, dated 10.06.2008 , has, in effect, given liberty to an industrial unit to apply to the Commission er for determination of the actual value addition if the manufacturer of such an industrial unit does not agree to the rate of excise duty exemption, which has been made available to the manufacturer under the impugned notification, dated 2 7.03.2008. Under the notification, dated 10.06.2008, the Commissioner can determ ine the actual value addition in the production or manufacture of goods and, the n, refund accordingly the excise duty to the extent of value addition made. The determination of the actual value addition has been termed as special rate . In effect, thus, what the respondents contend is that it is only when there is val ue addition in manufacturing a product that the manufacture would be entitled to exemption of excise duty payable on such a product. The respondents further con tend, (in this regard, and it is this aspect, which is under challenge) that the refund of excise duty would be limited to the extent of value addition and not beyond. In other words, according to the respondents, the 1997 IPR, and the noti fications issued thereunder, entitled a manufacturer to receive refund if there was value addition in the final product and, secondly, (though more importantly) , the excise duty refund was available only to the extent of value addition and no more. In short, thus, the respondents contend that a manufacturer would be en titled to exemption from payment of excise duty only if there is value addition and that the quantum of refund would be limited to the extent of value addition and no more. To put it a little differently, the respondents’ case is that unles s there is value addition, there is no entitlement to receive refund and the qua ntum of refund is limited to the extent of value addition made. Thus, if for ins tance, excisable input in a finished product is Rs.10/- and the excise duty paya ble on the finished product is Rs.50/-, the refund would be to the extent of Rs. 40/- and no more. 6. I may pause here to point out that in some of the writ petitions even t he notification, dated 10.06.2008, aforementioned, whereby Commissioner has been given the power to determine the actual value addition has been challenged on t he ground that the mechanism, provided thereunder, does not make available to th e petitioners exemption from payment of excise duty to the same extent as had be en promised to them by the 1997 IPR and various notifications issued earlier in this regard. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. N. Choudhury , learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The arguments of Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel, who has appeared on the behalf of one of the petitioners, have been, by and large, adopted by the learned counsel for the remaining petitioners, except, to some extent, as would be indicated he reinbelow, the arguments of Dr. Saraf, learned Senior counsel, who has also appe ared on behalf of some of the writ petitioners. 8. Pithily speaking, the challenge, posed to the impugned notifications, is based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It has been pointed out by Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel, that under the 1997 IPR, Union of India h ad taken a policy decision to grant complete exemption, from payment of excise d uty, for a period of ten years, to the eligible industrial units in respect of t heir industrial activities and it was to give effect to this policy decision tha t the Notification No.32/99-CE, dated 08.07.1999, had been issued granting compl ete exemption from payment of excise duty, or additional excise duty, on finishe d products inasmuch as the Notification, dated 08.07.1999, aforementioned made i t clear that the specified goods stood exempted from payment of so much of duty of excise, or additional duty of excise, as may be leviable on the products, equ al to the amount to be paid by the manufacturers of the goods from the account c urrent maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise Act, 19 44. The 1997 IPR, contends Mr. Goswami, clearly held out a promise for grant of complete exemption from payment of excise duty to the industrial units in respe ct of their specified products. The petitioners, according to Mr. Goswami, acte d upon the promise, so made, inasmuch as they have, lured by the promises, made huge investments and established industries for production of such goods as make the petitioners entitled to claim refund. Mr. Goswami submits that the petition ers have, thus, relying and acting upon the representations made, in the said in dustrial policy by the Government, have altered their position to their detrimen t. In such circumstances, submits Mr. Goswami, doctrine of promissory estoppel d oes not permit withdrawal of promises made under the said industrial policy by i ssuing a notification, such as, the present one, by the Ministry of Finance, Gov ernment of India, which clearly has the effect, according to Mr. Goswami, of red ucing the benefits of complete exemption from payment of excise duty inasmuch as the impugned Notification makes exemption available only to the extent of value addition; whereas the 1997 IPR and the earlier Notifications made exemption fro m payment of excise duty available on the finished products. This apart, points out Mr. Goswami, the exemption has, now, been made available only to the extent of specified rates, which have been fixed by the Government; whereas every indu strial unit may pay different cost for raw-materials and it is not necessary tha t the value addition, in a given product, by two different industrial units woul d be to the same extent. 9. It is submitted my Mr. Goswami that if the statutory authority or an ex ecutive authority of the State, functioning on behalf of the State, in exercise of its legally permissible powers, had held out any promise to a party, who, rel ying on the same, has changed its position to its detriment and when such a prom ise made to the party does not offend any provisions of law or does not fetter a ny legislative or quasi-judicial power inhering the promisor, then, on the stren gth of the principle of promissory estoppel, the promisor can be pinned down to keep to the promise made by the promisor. Only in the cases, contends Mr. Goswa mi, where ther "