9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 20th April 2006, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 was finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court on the basis of submission, said to have been made by Assistant Solicitor General, to the effect that a part of Schedule - III ought to have been notified in Schedule - II and the said correction would be made at the earliest. In the review application, it has been stated that the Assistant Solicitor General was not authorized to make any such submission. On the records of this Court, there is nothing to suggest that the Assistant Solicitor General was authorized to make such submission before this Court. In the circumstances, we allow the Review Petition No. 81 of 2006 filed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005 and, accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial expansion was used, no attempt was made to define the same in the policy. The policy directed, amongst others, the Revenue Department to amend Acts / Rules / Notifications, etc. and to issue necessary instructions for giving effect to the decision contained in the policy. The question, therefore, is whether an existing industrial unit, situated in an industrial estate located in Annexure I to the policy, could ask for the benefits under the said policy. In order to ask for the benefits under the policy, the unit concerned was required to show that it has made substantial expansion. Since what would be substantial expansion had not been indicated in the policy, there would always be dispute whether the unit concerned has disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the industrial unit of the petitioner is located in the industrial estate of Jashodharpur but the same is not situated on the Khasra numbers mentioned in the notification dated 10th June 2003. The industrial unit of the petitioner is situated on Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61 of Tehsil: Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand, but the same is situated within the industrial estate of Jashodharpur. Petitioner contends that Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61 were inadvertently omitted in the notification dated 10th June 2003. It is the contention of the petitioner that District Industrial Centre of the District was also of the same view and, accordingly, on 21st July 2003 made a request to the Industries Department of the State t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the industrial estates, where only on setting up of new industries, benefit of the policy would be available. It was contended that in Annexure III, the Khasra numbers, pertaining to the industry of the petitioner situated in Tehsil: Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal, State of Uttarakhand, was mentioned. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that a mandamus should, in the circumstances, be issued to rectify the original mistake, as was committed in Annexure II to the notification dated 10th June 2003 or to issue a direction for issuance of an appropriate notification permitting exemption of excise duty, in so far as the industrial unit of the petitioner is concerned and situated at Jashodharpur industrial estat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to effect not less than 25% expansion of its installed capacity in its existing industrial unit. However, when the policy was thus made wholesome by publication of the notification dated 10th June 2003, an existing industrial unit established in an industrial estate in the Tehsil of Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand, would not do. It would require to be an existing industrial unit situated in Jashodharpur industrial estate on those Khasra numbers, in the Tehsil of Kotdwar, in the district of Pauri Garhwal and in the State of Uttarakhand. The existing industrial unit of the petitioner being not there, the petitioner, we do not think, could act to its detriment for the purpose of taking advantage of the policy in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing something which the Court is not competent to do. In the circumstances, we are constrained to hold that, although it appears to us that Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61 were not incorporated in Annexure II to the notification dated 10th June 2003 for the blunder on the part of the State in furnishing appropriate information to the Union of India, but we are incompetent to incorporate the same in the said notification, particularly, in view of the fact that when the said mistake was pointed out, the Central Government agreed to give advantage to new industrial units situated on the said Khasra numbers by incorporating Annexure III to the notification dated 10th June 2003 by the amendment effected on 19th May 2005 and, accordingly, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
