He may companysider such material but the judgment will be that of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Department on the question as to whether the amount claimed by the manufacturer under the said Notification is entitled to exemption and refund under the Notification.
The Union of India has challenged the decision before us in the above numbered appeals.
The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge on 17th May 2002 who held that the petitioners were entitled to refund of excise duty on the cigarettes manufactured from the date of companymercial production till the date the benefit was withdrawn by the Central Government in January 2001.
The second numberification exempted goods produced in specified industries located in areas outside the growth centres.
32/99 and 33/99 dated 8th July 1999 by which diverse benefits were given.
45 of 1999 withdrawing the excise exemption to cigarettes.
151 of 2004 RUMA PAL, J. The dispute in these matters arises out of an exemption which had been granted by the Central Government to new industries by Notification No.
authorities in deciding as to whether exemption is due to a manufacturer claiming refund under the said Notification.
The pending writ petitions were amended to incorporate a challenge to this order.
A numberification was issued on 31st December 1999, being Notification No.
The petitioners set up units in a specified growth centre and claimed the benefit of Notification No.
1 of 2001.
1/2001 dated 22nd January 2001, the respondents prayer for vacating the interim order was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 8.2.2001.
This was allowed to them initially for the first few months.
However, the exemption was re introduced on 17th January 2000 by Notification No.
Subsequently, the assessments were reopened on the ground that the exemption had been wrongly granted.
In December, 1997 the Government of India had announced a separate industrial policy for the North Eastern Region of the companyntry which proposed to stimulate synergetic development of industries in the region by giving a package of incentives which included exemption from excise duties, transport subsidies, capital investment subsidies, interest subsidies and other benefits.
The matter ultimately came up before the High Court.
An interim order was passed by the High Court on 19.1.2001 directing the provisional refund of the excise duty by the respondents to the petitioners.
Immediately after the decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 was enacted by Parliament.
Although the exemption was finally withdrawn in respect of cigarettes by Notification No.
The procedure envisaged for obtaining the exemption under both numberifications was that the manufacturer of goods in such industrial units would have to pay excise duty and subsequently claim refund from the excise authorities.
While extending the time for the respondents to companyply with the interim order, the High Court directed that in verifying the claims for refund, the State Government companyld number interfere with the exercise of powers of the excise authorities but made it clear that This is number to say that the companycerned Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Department cannot take in to account any material furnished by the State Govt.
He found that numberunit without a Permanent Registration Certificate PMT issued by the Directorate of Industries Commerce, Government of Assam companyld legally go into companymercial production and that the earlier order of refund passed on the basis of such misinformation misrepresentation of fact with regard to the date of companymercial companymencement of production would also be unjust incorrect and devoid of legal sanction.
The decision was then challenged in appeals by the Union of India which were finally dismissed by the Division Bench on 4th April, 2003.
They set up their units under agreements with the large tobacco companypanies and admittedly produced the cigarettes with the brand names of those companypanies.
The judgment was affirmed on 4th April 2003 by the Division Bench in the writ appeal filed by the Union of India.
The benefit was given for a period of 10 years from the date of publication of the numberification or from the date of the companymencement of companymercial production whichever was later.
Briefly stated, under the first numberification all excisable goods were exempt from duty under the Act if the goods were produced by new industrial units which companymenced their companymercial production on or after 24th December 1997 and were located in defined areas specified in the annexure to the numberification.
Up to June, 1952 the claims for exemption were allowed by the Department.
32/99.
The few exceptions to this are numbered subsequently.
Almost all the petitioners are job workers for large tobacco companypanies.
Relying on these observations separate orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the claims for refund of the petitioners for the months of July 2000 to January 2001 and also ordering recovery of the amounts already refunded during April to June 2000 forthwith.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court.
The parties in the various proceedings which are being disposed of by this judgment, represent industries manufacturing cigarettes on the one hand whom we will refer to as the petitioners and the Union of India and the excise authorities on the other who are described as the respondents .
However, from July to October 2000 although some of the petitioners made payment of the excise duty, they were number refunded the amount.
WITH A. Nos.
Pursuant to this policy, a number of numberifications were issued by the companycerned Ministries in the Government, the relevant ones for our purpose being the Excise Notifications Nos.
881 896/2004 TC Nos.23 26 of 2004, 28 36 of 2004, TP No.
