2009 (10) TMI 58 - HC - Central Excise

Principle of equity - Notification No. 33/2008-C.E dated 10.6.2008 challanged on the ground that they have effect of depriving the petitioners and other similarly situated industries and industrial units, set up pursuant to the Notification No. 39/2001-C.E dated 31.7.2001, providing for the exemption from payment of excise duty for five years held that - principle of equity cannot be invoked so as to place fetters upon the central Government in implementing, effecting and carrying out its constitutional obligation to its citizens as such - The interest of so called promisee would certainly not outweigh the public interest and the public interest is aptly served on account of those notifications as could be seen from the record. The interest of entrepreneur cannot be understood as interest of people of Kutch - Section 38A of the Act also would be of no avail to the petitioners petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to Notifications No. 16/2008-C.E dated 27.3.2008 and No. 33/2008-C.E dated 10.6.2008.
2. Alleged violation of Promissory Estoppel.
3. Alleged discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Scope of Judicial Review in fiscal policy and statutory notifications.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Challenge to Notifications No. 16/2008-C.E dated 27.3.2008 and No. 33/2008-C.E dated 10.6.2008:
The petitioners, comprising industrial units in the Kutch district, challenged these notifications on the grounds that they altered the basis of excise duty exemption initially provided under Notification No. 39/2001-C.E dated 31.7.2001. The original notification offered a five-year exemption from excise duty to newly set up industrial units as an incentive to rehabilitate the region post the 2001 earthquake. The impugned notifications shifted the exemption basis from total duty paid to value addition in manufacturing, which petitioners claimed drastically reduced their benefits.

2. Alleged Violation of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioners argued that the change in the exemption scheme breached the principle of promissory estoppel. They contended that they had made significant investments based on the promise of a five-year exemption from excise duty. The court, however, held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the government from making changes in public interest. The court cited various precedents, including the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills, which established that promissory estoppel does not apply against legislative functions or statutory duties.

3. Alleged Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners claimed that the impugned notifications were discriminatory as they treated newly established units differently from those set up earlier, which had enjoyed the full five-year exemption. The court found that the changes were justified to curb misuse and evasion of excise duty, which was not serving the intended purpose of generating employment and aiding regional rehabilitation. The court emphasized that the amendments applied uniformly to all regions with similar exemption schemes, thus not violating Article 14.

4. Scope of Judicial Review in Fiscal Policy and Statutory Notifications:
The court reiterated that judicial review of fiscal policy is limited. It cannot substitute its reasoning for that of the government regarding the necessity and adequacy of amendments in fiscal schemes. The court upheld the government's authority under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act to issue and amend exemption notifications in public interest. The court also noted that the notifications were prospective and did not affect benefits already accrued.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the impugned notifications were within the government's power and justified by public interest. The plea of promissory estoppel was not applicable as the changes were necessary to prevent misuse and ensure the scheme's objectives were met. The court found no violation of Article 14, as the amendments were uniformly applied and aimed at addressing genuine issues in the implementation of the exemption scheme. The court also highlighted that the petitioners could approach the government for any specific anomalies or hardships arising from the new notifications.