2010 (12) TMI 1251 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Review of a decision based on unauthorized submission by Assistant Solicitor General, interpretation of a government policy for excise duty exemption, rectification of notification regarding industrial unit location, legal implications of promises made in a policy, authority of the court to rectify government notifications.

Review Application No. 81 of 2006: The High Court allowed the review petition as the Assistant Solicitor General was not authorized to make a submission regarding a correction in a previous order. The Court recalled the order dated 20th April 2006 and directed that the original writ petition be heard afresh.

Interpretation of Government Policy: An industrial unit sought excise duty exemption under a government policy announced on 7th January 2003. The policy required substantial expansion for existing units to qualify for benefits. However, the lack of a clear definition of "substantial expansion" in the policy led to ambiguity. The policy only became conclusive upon the publication of a notification on 10th June 2003, specifying the criteria for expansion to avail benefits.

Rectification of Notification: The petitioner's industrial unit was located in an estate not specifically mentioned in the notification. Despite efforts to rectify this omission, the Central Government did not incorporate the correct location details in the notification. The petitioner sought a mandamus to rectify this mistake, but the Court found it beyond its authority to expand the policy through judicial intervention.

Legal Implications of Promises in Policy: The Court analyzed whether the petitioner could act to its detriment based on the promises made in the policy. It concluded that without specific details on expansion requirements, the petitioner could not have reasonably acted to qualify for benefits under the policy dated 7th January 2003.

Authority to Rectify Government Notifications: While acknowledging the error in omitting certain location details, the Court held that it could not rectify the notification unilaterally. The Central Government's decision to amend the notification in 2005 was deemed a conscious policy choice, limiting the Court's intervention. The Court also dismissed claims of discrimination in the policy based on location.

Conclusion: The Court closed the matter but directed the Central Government to inform the petitioner of the outcome of their representation within six weeks. The Court refrained from delving into the petitioner's claims of substantial expansion, emphasizing the limited scope of its review in policy matters.