9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferentia to uphold the contention that only existing units with substantial development are eligible to get the tax/duty remission and holiday. The very purpose of devising the industrial policy, i.e. Notification No.50/2003 is to give incentive to growth of industry in the two States. It should also apply to new units in non-industrial areas. The writ petition is a meritorious one, and should be allowed - the opinion of the respondent No.3 in expression to the respondent No.2 his opinion on extension of benefit of exemption to new industrial units established in the category industrial activities in non-industrial areas are, hereby, quashed - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 266 OF 2005 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2022 - SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J. AND SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Mullick, learned counsel For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel counsel Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel JUDGMENT ( Per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J. ) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, which a partnership firm, has prayed for issuance of a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is covered by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Om Ispat vs. Secretary, Industrial Department, Government of Uttarakand, Dehradun and others, Writ Petition (M/S) No.163 of 2009 , dated 04.08.2011. Therefore, it is prayed that since the matter is covered by a Full Bench Judge of this Court, there is no impediment in issuing a writ of certiorari and mandamus, as prayed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, and Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, would argue that the petitioner s case does not come under the notification 50/2003, and it cannot also take advantage of the notification No.49/2003 dated 10.06.2003, as it is not a thrust industry. 5. We have clearly examined the pleadings raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, and we give much emphasis on the counter-affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun. 6. From the pleadings raised, it is appropriate to record certain pleas taken by them, as we are of the opinion that the arguments raised by the learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial expansion and not for new industries. 11. The Deputy Commissioner further plead that the answering respondents have interpreted the notification dated 10.06.2003 on the basis of clarification given by the Nodal Agency, and Khasra Nos. mentioned in Annexure II appended to the said notification are divided into four categories, namely (i) Existing Industrial Estate/Region, (ii) Proposed Industrial Area, (iii) Expansion of Existing Industrial Area, and (iv) Industrial Activity in Non-Industrial Area (to be notified alongwith extension), or Industrial Activity in Non- Industrial Area. It is further pleaded that the MD, SIDCUL in their aforesaid clarification has clarified that while sending the Khasra Nos. for notification to Government of India by the Government of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), in the category industrial activity in non-industrial area (to be notified alongwith extension), industrial activity in nonindustrial area , reference was made of existing Industrial Unit only. The intention of the Government of India was very clear. Therefore, the Khasra Nos. were divided into four categories, as mentioned above. Khasra Nos.610 and 624, Turner Road, Clement-town wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t exemption from Central Excise is to be given in Khasra No.54 in village Behedeki to existing units only and since the petitioner s unit is a new unit, the benefit of exemption under the notification dated 10.06.2003 cannot be granted . 14. These two paragraphs show that the point of controversy in the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Om Ispat (supra), and the point of controversy arising in this writ petition are identical. 15. While deciding the case, the Full Bench has held as under. We find apt to quote the exact words used by the Full Bench. 22. The sole question which is required to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled for central excise exemption under the notification No.50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. 23. Clause 3.1 of the policy dated 07.01.2003 indicate that new industrial units located in growth centres, etc. as stated in Annexure-I to the policy would be entitled to exemption of central excise duty. Locations were identified in general in Annexure-I to the policy, which included Iqbalpur Tehsil in District Haridwar. Clause 3.1 of the policy dated 07.01.2003 provided that the Central Government, in additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f had clarified that the words to be notified alongwith extension under category C was a typographical error, which in our opinion is correct and we further hold that the said words to be notified alongwith extension does not in any manner indicate that another notification was required to be issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to claim the benefit of exemption. The notification dated 10.06.2003 by itself was sufficient to claim the benefit of exemption. 29. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.333 of 2005 (M/B) tilted as M/s S. S. Poles Vs. The Secretary, Industries Department others decided on 16.05.2005, held that the opinion of the Managing Director of the SIDCUL could not override the notification dated 10.06.2003 and held that the notification dated 10.06.2003 would prevail. We are in agreement with the said decision . (underlined to emphasize) 16. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we come to the conclusion that the controversy involved in this case has already set at rest by the Full Bench of this Court, and it has, vide its aforesaid judgment, categorically come to the conclusion that remission of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
