2020 (4) TMI 885 - SCH - Central Excise

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - withdrawal of scheme for revival of economy in Kutch District - Withdrawal of the benefit/incentive scheme to the original writ petitioners - retrospective or retroactive? - effect of subsequent N/N. 16/2008 dated 27.03.2008 - It was the case of the original writ petitioners that the subsequent notification No. 16/2008-CE changed the entire basis of the incentive exemption and had the effect of substantially reducing their entitlement of refund. It was also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that as a result of the said amendment which resulted in their entitlement for refund being reduced from nearly 100% of the duty paid to only 34% of such duty amount. HELD THAT - For the rest of the matters, leave is granted in the Special Leave Petitions and matters extracted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of subsequent notifications/industrial policies.
2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
3. Validity of judgments passed by respective High Courts.

Interpretation of subsequent notifications/industrial policies:
The Supreme Court examined the nature of subsequent notifications/industrial policies challenged before the High Courts. It held that these notifications were clarificatory in nature, issued in public interest and for revenue purposes, aiming to maintain the original objective of incentivizing investments in new undertakings. The Court concluded that these notifications did not revoke any vested rights granted under earlier policies. Consequently, the Court determined that the notifications should be applied retrospectively, emphasizing that they were not arbitrary or irrational.

Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel:
The Court found that the High Courts had erred in applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the subsequent notifications/industrial policies. It held that the notifications did not violate the doctrine as they did not nullify any vested rights conferred earlier. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals, overturning the judgments of the High Courts that had set aside the impugned notifications. The original writ petitions challenging these notifications were dismissed, and the Court clarified that the judgment would not impact excise duty refunds already granted before the notifications were challenged.

Validity of judgments passed by respective High Courts:
The Supreme Court declared that the High Courts had made a serious error in quashing the subsequent notifications/industrial policies based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Courts and dismissed the original writ petitions. It further clarified that excise duty refunds already issued would not be affected by the judgment. The Court directed that pending refund applications should be decided in accordance with the impugned notifications and the law, emphasizing that they should be reviewed on their merits. The Civil Appeals related to specific notifications were also dismissed, with the Court upholding the refund of excise duties in line with the relevant notifications.