2015 (10) TMI 2571 - SC - Central Excise

100% EOU - export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco across the globe - production to be sold or released in the local market in India - exemption from operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2011 - Held that - It is evident that a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by Baba Global Ltd. has been finally disposed of by permitting the 100% export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco in multilayered plastic sachet; and in Harsh International interim orders have been passed exempting the Writ Petitioner from the operation of the said 2011 Rules - Petitioner No. 1 shall be exempted from the operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 During the pendency of the present proceedings, the Petitioner shall stand exempted from the operation of the 2011 Rules on the understanding that it shall strictly abide by all the terms contained in the Undertaking furnished by it in terms of its Affidavit dated 28th July, 2015

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Authorization of exemption statement by the Additional Solicitor General.
2. Competency of the Ministry to grant exemptions.
3. Existence of a filed Review.
4. Parity of treatment among Writ Petitioners.
5. Imparting parity to all Writ Petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The main contention revolved around the authorization of the exemption statement made by the Additional Solicitor General in an earlier order. The Respondent argued that the Ministry was not empowered to grant such exemptions, leading to the filing of a Review.

2. The competency of the Ministry to grant exemptions was questioned, emphasizing that the Ministry lacked the authority to provide exemptions. This raised doubts about the validity of the exemption granted in the previous order.

3. Concerns were raised regarding the existence of a filed Review, as it was not reflected in the records. The absence of details about the Review in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India added to the ambiguity surrounding the Review's status.

4. The need for parity of treatment among all the Writ Petitioners was highlighted to ensure fairness in the proceedings. The Petitioner sought similar treatment as in previous cases to maintain consistency and equality in the application of rules and exemptions.

5. To address the issue of parity, the Court decided to impart similar orders as in a specific case, exempting the Petitioner from the operation of the 2011 Rules during the ongoing proceedings. This decision was based on the understanding that the Petitioner would adhere strictly to the terms outlined in the Undertaking provided in its Affidavit.

Overall, the judgment aimed to maintain consistency and fairness by ensuring that all Writ Petitioners received equal treatment and exemptions during the legal proceedings. The Court's decision to grant similar orders to the Petitioner was based on the principle of parity and adherence to the terms of the Undertaking.