9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edhi and Mr. P. Das, Advocates for the review applicant (also referred to as the applicant) and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate for the Revenue. 02. The applicant had approached this Court with a challenge to the notifications No.11/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 and No.21/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007. Whereas, by the former the applicant was aggrieved by the withdrawal of the benefit of excise duty exemption vis-a-vis its tobacco products referred to therein, the latter visited it with similar adverse consequence qua its manufactured product, Pan Masala . The separate impugnments against these two notifications before this Court were registered as WP(C) No.750/2010 and WP(C) No.749/2010 respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de Office Memorandum No.10(3)/2007-DBA-II/NER dated 01.04.2007 by the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. This Policy though, approved a package of fiscal incentives and other concessions for the North Eastern Region with effect from that date categorized pan masala covered under Chapter 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Tariff Act, 1985) in the Negative List of industries branded as ineligible for the benefits thereunder. The applicant, however insisted that this negative list, notwithstanding, it having commenced production on/or before 31.03.2007, it was entitled to enjoy the exemption benefits unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 725. The respondent-Revenue also relied upon a series of notifications to mark the progression of events between 08.07.1999 and 25.04.2007 to justify the impugned notifications. The pleas raised on behalf of the applicant were sought to be neutered on this counts. The contentions based on purposive interpretation of Policy,2007 protection U/s.38A of the Act, legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were dismissed inter alia on the ground of absence of the impugnment of the aforementioned policy. 07. This Court sustained the stand of the respondent- Revenue and dismissed the challenge laid by the applicant on the following grounds: (a) Section 154 of the Finance Act,2003 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act as well as the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. 08. The review applicant presently seeks to contend in substance that as Section 154 of the Finance Act,2003 read with Schedule IX thereof was not applicable to pan masala not containing tobacco, its manufactured product involved in WP(C) No.749/2010, the ultimate conclusion recorded against it in that writ proceeding suffers from the vice of doctrine of mistake of fact and doctrine of mistake of law and the same being apparent on the face of the record, the impugned judgment and order to that extent is reviewable. Referring to the plenary power of this Court to correct its patent errors in adjudication in the interest of justice, Mr. Bhattacharjee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power of the Government as the framer of the Policy to re-model the same in the felt exigencies catering to public interest. 11. The rival submissions have been duly noticed. A plain reading of the averments in the writ petition of WP(C) No.749/2010 reveals that though, these successively referred to pan masala as the manufactured product of the applicant involved therein, as submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya it is not decipherable therefrom that it was sans tobacco. This assumes significance in the context of the ground now taken for review in as much as pan masala containing tobacco falling under sub-heading No.2402.00 or 2404.49 as the case may be of the First Schedule or the Second Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1985 had been excluded fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet perceptible bearing thereof on the process of classification of pan masala as a whole under Chapter 21 of this enactment in the negative list is deductible. In the opinion of this Court even if the impact of Section 154 of the Finance Act,2003 read with Schedule IX thereto and the decision of the Apex Court in R.C. Tobacco (Supra) wears off in view of the non applicability thereof to pan masala not containing tobacco, having regard to the otherwise irrefutable and unequivocal exclusion of this product from the purview of exemption/incentives extended under the Policy,2007, the impugnment of the notification dated 25.04.2007 which is an instrument to actualise this intention of the policy maker cannot be upheld. The finding in the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
