The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, and Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in protecting the petitioner's rights to tax benefits as per the notifications.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

“i. To issue a writ or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the directions of the respondent no. 6 give vide letters dated 28.09.2005 and 03.10.2005 in so far as they deny the benefit of exemption to the petitioner’s existing unit and directing the petitioner to deposit Central Excise duty as applicable with interest w.e.f. 19.05.2005 (Annexure No. IX & X).

ii. To issue a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent no. 2 to reinstate Khasra Nos. 148D, 176B, 173B & 176A in village Chandrabani Khalsa, Mohobewala industrial area, Dehradun in Annexure II to the Notification 50/2003 CE dated 10.06.2003 with retrospective effect.

iii. To issue any other writ or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

2. This writ petition was earlier disposed of along with a batch writ petitions by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2006 whereby the High Court was pleased to constitute a high powered committee and empowered it with judicial powers. Against the said order the Union of India, after obtaining special leave to appeal, preferred a batch of civil appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 2007 and other connected matters. The batch of appeals was taken up for hearing by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.01.2020 was pleased to dispose of the appeals and remanded the present petition for proper adjudication. We find it appropriate to quote paragraphs no. 7 to 10 of the aforesaid judgment:

“7. The writ petitioner was entitled for seeking exemption under the Central Excise Act, 1944 by virtue of having an industry located in certain Khasra No. The writ petitioner’s unit was mentioned in Annexure 2 which is a list of industry entitled to exemption. The writ petitioner’s unit was shifted to Annexure 3 which is a list of industry which became dis-entitled to exemption. According to the writ petitioner this was an inadvertent error. The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition praying for correction of the error and including their unit at Annexure 2 so as to get benefit of exemption.

8. According to Shri K. Radhakrishanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue this was a conscious decision to disentitle the writ petitioner from exemption.

9. The High Court disposed of this matter along with other matters by constituting a Committee and investing the Committee with Judicial powers, which it was not authorized to do. We have set aside the impugned order of the High Court in another batch civil appeals by order passed hereinabove. That order is in respect of writ petitions which have become infructuous in view of the introduction of GST. However, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the issues raised in the present writ petition would survive.

10. We accordingly direct that the present matter be remanded to the High Court for proper adjudication in accordance with law. All questions are left open. The parties are at liberty to file additional affidavits.”

3. After remand, the matter is taken up for disposal. The facts of the case are as follows:

“i. On 07.01.2003, office memorandum was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion by which fiscal incentives were declared for the States of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) and Himachal Pradesh.

ii. On 10.06.2003, the Central Excise Notification No. 50/ 2003 CE was issued.

iii. On 15.10.2003, the petitioner substantially expanded its installed capacity by 1 million watches from existing capacity of 2 million watches with total capacity aggregating to 3 million watches.

iv. On 28.06.2004, Income Tax Notification No. 177/2004 was issued.

v. On 22.12.2004, Office memorandum recognizing exemption claim of the petitioner was issued.

vi. On 04.03.2005/ 18.08.2