JUDGMENT B. Lamare, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned Counsel, Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Counsel and Mr. K. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Heard also Mr. R. Debnath, learned Addl. Central. Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. These writ petitions involve common question of facts and law to be decided, hence all the writ petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. The facts of the cases in short are that the Government of India in the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, issued an office memorandum vide, No. EA/1/2/96, dated 24-12-1997 announcing the new industrial policy and other concession in the North Eastern Region. The aims and objects of the said policy are explained in paragraph 1 of the said office memorandum which reads as follows : "Annexure-C No. EA/1/2/96- Government of India Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion 24th December, 1997 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: New Industrial Policy and other concession in the North Eastern Region. In view of the continuing backwardness of North East Region, the need for a new and synergetic incentive package was widely felt to stimulate development of industries (Hon'ble Prime Minister made statement at Guwahati on October 27th, 1996 that...initiatives would be announced for the industrial development of the North Eastern Region). Expert Groups/Committees were constituted by the Ministry of Industry and Planning Commission to the initiatives." 4. The Fiscal incentives to new Industries units and their substantial expansion are explained in paragraph of the office memorandum which is as follows : "Fiscal Incentives to new Industries units and their substantial expansion. (i) Government has approved for converting the growth centres and IIDCs into a total tax-free zone for the next 10 years. All industrial activities in these zone would be free from income tax, excise... for a period of 10 years from the commencement of production. State Governments would be requested ....... grant exemptions in respect of Sales tax and Municipal tax. (ii) Industries located in the growth centre would also be given capital investment subsidy at the rate of 15% of their investment the plant and machinery subject to maximum ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs. (iii) The commercial banks and the North East Development Financial Corporation (NEDFI) will have dedicated branches/counters in process application for term loans and working capital in these centres. 30 lakhs. (iii) The commercial banks and the North East Development Financial Corporation (NEDFI) will have dedicated branches/counters in process application for term loans and working capital in these centres. While sanctioning assistance NEDFI and commercial banks would take a liberal view of the debt equity ratio. (iv) An interest subsidy of 3% on the working capital loans would be provided for a period of ten years after the commencement of production. The working capital requirements would be worked out as per the Nayak Committee. (v) Similar benefits would be extended to the new industries units on their substantial expansion in other growth centers of IIDCs or industrial estates/parks/exports promotion zones set up by the estate in the M.B. region. New industrial unit or their substantial expansion in the specified industries (as at annexure-A) located outside this growth centres and other identified locations would also be eligible for the similar fiscal incentive." 5. The said office memorandum was intended to promote industrial growth in the North Eastern region considering the backwardness of the region. The new industrial policy was made after the matter was examined by expert groups and committees constituted by the Ministry of Industry and Planning Commission as there was a need for a new and synergetic incentive package for the region to develop industries. 6. The petitioners as promising entrepreneur, have advanced, these causes and facilities provided by the Central Government and started the industries in this region in Meghalaya. 7. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 37 (S.H.) of 2001 started its industrial unit for manufacturing of M.S. Ingots at Byrnihat in the District of Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya and the unit started production from 16-1-1998. 8. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 66 (S.H.) 2000 having its registered office and factory at Byrnihat, Meghalaya carrying on the business of manufacturing of M.S. Ingots and started production from 1-1-1998. 9. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 69 (S.H.) 2006 started its industrial unit at Byrnihat in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya and started manufacturing M.S. Ingots and started production from 12-2-1999. 10. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 227 (S.H.) of 1999 started its industrial unit for manufacturing of PSC Poles and Steel Fabricated structure at Byrnihat in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya. Subsequently, the company has also started the production of M.S. Ingots, Runners etc. w.e.f. 14-7-1999. 11. 10. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 227 (S.H.) of 1999 started its industrial unit for manufacturing of PSC Poles and Steel Fabricated structure at Byrnihat in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya. Subsequently, the company has also started the production of M.S. Ingots, Runners etc. w.e.f. 14-7-1999. 11. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 188 (S.H.) 2000 started its industrial unit at 13th Mile, Tamulikuchi, Byrnihat, Meghalaya for manufacturing of M.S. Ingots. The company started its production with effect from 1-8-1997. 12. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 189 (S.H.) 2000 started its industrial unit at Byrnihat in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya for manufacturing and selling of M.S. Ingots. The company started production with effect from 12-4-2000 after the unit was expanded with due intimation to the concerned authority. 13. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 12 (S.H.) 2002 [W.P. (C) No. 5577/2000] started its industrial unit at Byrnihat in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya for manufacturing and selling of M.S. Ingots. The company started its production in the month of September /October, 1997. Thereafter, the company expanded its capacity with effect from 12-4-2000 with due intimation to the Chief Inspector of Factory, Meghalaya, Shillong. 14. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 67 (S.H.) 2000 started its industrial unit at Byrnihat in Meghalaya for manufacturing and selling of M.S. Ingots, HSD Bars, Angles etc. and started its commercial production with effect from 17-9-1997. 15. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 105 (S.H.) 2000 started its industrial unit at Umtru Road, Norbung, Byrnihat, Meghalaya for manufacturing and exporting of M.S. Ingots, HSD Bars, Rods and Angles etc. The company started its commercial production with effect from 14-7-1999 after obtaining the registration certificate by striking out the production of PSC polls and steel fabrication structures and carried on the business only for the manufacturing and selling of M.S. Ingots etc. 16. All the above industrial units of the petitioners were established after due permission from the authorities of the State and the Central Government and also after obtaining requisite permission from the local authorities namely, the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council and the Syiem of Myllem. All the petitioners were to obtain the registration certificate from the concerned authorities and intimated the date of production to the respondent authorities. All the petitioners were to obtain the registration certificate from the concerned authorities and intimated the date of production to the respondent authorities. The functioning of their said industrial units and their date of establishment and commencement of production were duly informed by the petitioners to the respondent authorities. 17. On coming to know of the said industrial policy promulgated by the Central Government for providing the synergetic incentive package for the North Eastern region, the writ petitioners established their respective industrial units in the Byrnihat area, Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya, and started their production. Their units were duly recognised by the Central Excise authorities and registration certificates were also issued to the petitioners by the Central Excise authorities. 18. In the said office Memorandum dated 24-12-1997 it is also mentioned that "Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to amend the rules/notifications etc. and issue necessary instructions for giving effect to these decisions." 19. Pursuant to the said request to the Finance Department in the said memorandum, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued the Notification No. 23/99 dated 8th July, 1999 whereby the benefits as provided in the office memorandum were granted to the NER units in the areas mentioned in the annexure annexed to the said notification. The said notification reads as follows : "(a) The manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid from the said account current to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. (b) The Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification, as may be deemed necessary shall refund the amount of duty paid from the account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of the next month. (c) If there is likely to be any delay in the verification, the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall refund the amount on provisional basis by the 15th of the next month to the month under consideration, and thereafter may adjust the amount of refund by such amount, as may be necessary in the subsequent refunds admissible to the manufacturer. 3. 3. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the following kind of units namely :- (a) New industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 24th day of December, 1997. (b) Industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five per cent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997. 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply to any of the said units for a period not exceeding ten years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production whichever is later." 20. By virtue of Clause 3 of the said notification, the industrial units which commenced their commercial production on or after 24th December, 1997 shall be entitled to such benefits. For these industrial units which were existing prior to 24-12-1997 and for undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in their capacity by not less than 25% on or after 24-12-1997 are also entitled to exemption. The notification, however, provided that the exemption to the said units is for the period of ten years from the date of publication of the notification or from the date of commencement of commercial production whichever is later. It is this provision in Clause 4 of the notification which is assailed by the writ petitioners in these writ petitions. Therefore, the question to be examined is whether the said provision made in Clause 4 of the notification, is in consonance with the industrial policy promulgated by the Central Government in paragraph C of the office memorandum. 21. On perusal of paragraph C(1) of the office memorandum provides for exemption from Income Tax, Excise for the period of ten years from the commencement of production. There is no provision that the exemption is to be made from the date of issue of amendment of rules/notifications as requested to the Finance Ministry in the office memorandum. The exemption granted under the office memorandum is simple i.e., from the date of commencement of commercial production. Therefore, the question is whether the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance is in-consonance with the said provision made in paragraph C(1) of the office memorandum. 22. The exemption granted under the office memorandum is simple i.e., from the date of commencement of commercial production. Therefore, the question is whether the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance is in-consonance with the said provision made in paragraph C(1) of the office memorandum. 22. In the office memorandum dated 24-12-1997 of the Government of-India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the Government clearly announced and declared that the Government has approved for converting, the course centre and IIDCs into a total tax free zone for the next ten years from the date of commencement of production. This announcement was made in the opening page of the office memorandum that there was a need for a new and synergetic incentive package to stimulate development of industries in the approved areas of the North Eastern region. By virtue of this office memorandum dated 24-12-1997, a promise was made by the Government of India that all industrial activities in the zone were to be free from excise duty for the period of ten years from the commencement of production. The intention of issuing the office memorandum is to encourage new industries to come up in the North Eastern region which was also the intention of the Government of India and acting on the basis of this promise made by the Government of India, the writ petitioners have established their units and started commercial production with due intimation to the Central Excise authorities and obtained registration certificate from them. Thus, from the office memorandum it shows that the Government of India has made a promise that the industrial units shall be free from excise duty for the period of ten years as mentioned in paragraph C(1) of the said office memorandum. The said office memorandum was issued after taking into consideration the recommendation of the expert bodies and committees and considering the industrial backwardness of the region. The office memorandum is a policy decision taken by the Government after approval by the Cabinet. 23. The notification dated 8-7-1999 was issued pursuant to the request made in the office memorandum to the Ministry of Finance. However, in the said notification, it is mentioned that the date of exemption shall be from the date of commercial production or the date of issue of notification whichever is later. 23. The notification dated 8-7-1999 was issued pursuant to the request made in the office memorandum to the Ministry of Finance. However, in the said notification, it is mentioned that the date of exemption shall be from the date of commercial production or the date of issue of notification whichever is later. It is admitted position that the petitioners have established their units after 24-12-1997 and started commercial production thereafter before the issue of the notification dated 8-7-1999. By making provision in Clause 4 of the notification, the petitioners were denied of the benefit of Excise Duty exemption from the date they started commercial production and instead, they were granted the exemption only from the date of the notification and that too after their areas were included by an amended notification No. 23/2000 dated 29-3-2000. The petitioners were not granted the benefit of Excise Duty exemption from the date of the original notification dated 8-7-1999, but were given exemption only from the date the amended notification was issued on 29-3-2000 when the area of Byrnihat, Khanapara was included for availing the benefits granted under the said office memorandum. 24. In Order to appreciate the materials available on records I may look into the Office Memorandum dated 24-12-1997 as quoted above and examine the new Industrial Policy and concessions made by the Central Government in the North Eastern Region. The preamble to the Office Memorandum clearly indicates that the intention of the Government to promulgate the New Industrial Policy was made after the Hon'ble Prime Minister has made a statement at Gauhati on 27th October, 1996 that new incentives would be provided for the industrial development of the North Eastern Region. The new industrial policy was announced after the matter was examined by the expert groups/committees constituted by the Ministry of Industry and Planning. Thereafter the policy was approved by the Union Cabinet. 25. While issuing the said Office Memorandum dated 24-12-1997 the Ministry of Finance, etc. were, also, requested to amend the rules/notifications etc. and, issue necessary instructions for giving effect to these decisions. The Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue) in pursuant thereof has issued the impugned Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 whereby the benefits provided in the Office Memorandum were granted only from the date of commencement of production or publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette whichever is later. and, issue necessary instructions for giving effect to these decisions. The Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue) in pursuant thereof has issued the impugned Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 whereby the benefits provided in the Office Memorandum were granted only from the date of commencement of production or publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette whichever is later. It is this exemption granted in Clause 4 of the Notification that the writ petitioners in these writ petitions were aggrieved and have approached this court by way of these writ petitions. 26. In view of the above facts this court is to examine the said industrial policy as per the Office Memorandum dated 24-12-1997 vis-a-vis the Notification. No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999. This court had the occasion to deal with the similarly situated case of Vinay Cements Ltd. Petitioners v. State of Assam and Ors. Respondents reported in 1996 (II) GLT 146 and in paragraph 8 of the judgment came to the following conclusions: "......The State Government according to me has given assurances and promises to the Entrepreneur to set up the Cement Factory in the most backward District of Assam and the said Entrepreneur since then has set up the said Cement Project in the said Backward District, as such in my view of the matter, the State Government cannot resile or go back on their assurances and promises as contained in the said Schemes of 1982 and 1986 and various letters written by the State Government to the petitioner Company and/or its Promoter and as such they are bound to comply with the same. I direct the respondents authorities to issue Eligibility Certificate to the petitioner Company and grant all the incentives entitled under the said Scheme of 1982. The Rule issued therein is made absolute. Such Eligibility Certificate should be issued within a period of 2 months from the date." 27. In the above case the Government of Assam has introduced a new scheme known as 1986 incentive scheme for industrial development of the State with effect from 1-1-1987. The writ petitioners were denied of the benefit. This Court has held that the writ petitioner has established his Cement Factory by abiding all the provisions of the scheme and therefore the State Government has to honour its promises to the entrepreneur and direct the State Government to issue the Eligibility Certificate. 28. The writ petitioners were denied of the benefit. This Court has held that the writ petitioner has established his Cement Factory by abiding all the provisions of the scheme and therefore the State Government has to honour its promises to the entrepreneur and direct the State Government to issue the Eligibility Certificate. 28. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. and Ors. and Ors., analogues matters has dealt with the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1999 introduced by the State of Bihar and the Notification dated 2-4-1994 issued by the Govt. of Bihar, Deptt. of Finance whereby the conditions imposed by the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 were extended only to those industrial units who have not availed any facility on the earlier incentive policy and in that case the Notification was struck down by the Apex Court. In paragraph 7 of the judgment the Apex Court has held as follows :- "....The industrial incentive policy is issued by the State Government after such policy is approved by the Cabinet itself. The issuance of the notification under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act is by the State Government in the Finance Department which notification is issued to carry out the objectives and the policy decisions taken in the industrial policy itself. In this view of the matter, any notification issued by Government Order in exercise of power under Section7 of the Bihar Finance Act, if is found to be repugnant to the industrial policy declared in a government resolution, then the said notification must be held to be bad to that extent. In the case in hand, the notification issued by the State Government on 4-4-1994 has been examined by the High Court and has been found, rightly, to be contrary to the Industrial Incentive Policy, more particularly, the policy engrafted in clause 10.4(i)(b). Consequently, the High Court was fully justified in striking down that part of the notification. Which is repugnant to Sub-clause (b) of Clause 10.4(i) and we do not find any error committed by the High Court in striking down the said notification. We are not persuaded to accept the contention of Mr. Dwivedi that it would be open for the Government to issue a notification in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, which may override the incentive policy itself. We are not persuaded to accept the contention of Mr. Dwivedi that it would be open for the Government to issue a notification in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, which may override the incentive policy itself. In our considered opinion, the expression "such conditions and restrictions as it may, impose" in Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act will not authorise the State Government to negate the incentives and benefits which any industrial unit would be otherwise entitled to under the general policy resolution itself. In this view of the matter, we see no illegality with the impugned judgment of the High Court in striking down a part of the notification dated 4-4-1994." 29. In the similarly situated case of Manjushree Extrusions Ltd. and Anr. Appellants v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in (2001) 2 GLR 218, this Court has dealt with the industrial policy announced by the State of Assam in 1991 and a grant of Sales Tax Concession thereof. In paragraph 69 and 70 of the judgment the Three Judge Bench of this Court has held as follows :- "69. The aforementioned interpretation put by me upon the industrial Policy of 1991, leads me to scrutinise whether any change has been made by the notification of 1995 in which Industrial Scheme of 1995 has been published. Clause 7 has laid down the criterion of actual production of an industrial unit during 365 consecutive working days preceding the date of completion of its expansion by describing the same as base year production. This was not the criterion in the Industrial Policy of 1991. There is not even a single word in Clause 7 to the effect that an existing unit would also be eligible for all incentives, namely, sales tax exemption, provided it undertakes expansion/modernisation/diversification by making an increase of at least 25% in the existing installed capacity as well as increase of additional 10% employment. On the other hand, altogether different criterion has been laid down not only in Clause 7 but in other clauses as well which have been reproduced by me in the earlier part of my judgment i.e. para 3. On the other hand, altogether different criterion has been laid down not only in Clause 7 but in other clauses as well which have been reproduced by me in the earlier part of my judgment i.e. para 3. In my considered opinion, it is too much for the State now to contend that sales tax exemption would be available to an industrial unit to that extent only to which expansion was made by an industrial unit, after having held out a promise in the year 1991 that sales tax exemption shall be available to both new and existing industrial units. It would not be out of place to mention at this stage that it is the specific case of the appellants that they neither paid sales tax on the purchase of materials nor charged sales tax on finished goods. Not only that even implementing agency, admittedly, issued eligibility certificates to all the appellants granting them exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of seven years. No condition whatsoever was laid down in the certificates that the exemption would be available only on the increased introduction resulting from the expansion, modernisation or diversification and in fact, no provision in the Industrial Policy of 1991 contemplated about the increase in production for availing the full sales tax exemption. In other words, the Industrial Policy was understood both by the industrial units and by the department in the same manner. It is now too late in the day to ask the industrial units to pay the sales tax beyond the increased capacity when they have neither paid the same on raw materials purchased nor charged the same on finished goods from their customers. 70. It appears to me that full sales tax exemption was granted even to the existing industrial units keeping in view the peculiar conditions prevailing in Assam where, it cannot be denied, that industries have gone to dogs. It appears to me that in Order to boost up the setting up of new industries and also boost up the expansion, modernisation and diversification of existing industrial units that exemption from payment of sales tax was granted for a period of seven years. It appears to me that in Order to boost up the setting up of new industries and also boost up the expansion, modernisation and diversification of existing industrial units that exemption from payment of sales tax was granted for a period of seven years. After making a clear cut provision in the 1991 policy, the State cannot make a somersault and change the scheme in the year 1995 to the detriment of its subjects." The above judgment was rendered after the Division Bench has passed different opinion and the matter was referred to the 3rd Judge and the decision has become a majority decision. 30. Coming back to the case in hand it is noticed that the Government by way of Office Memorandum dated 24-12-1997 has clearly laid down the policy and requested the Ministry of Finance etc. to amend the Rules/Notifications and issue necessary instructions for giving effect to the decisions as per the Office Memorandum. By issuing the impugned Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 the benefits granted under the said Office Memorandum has been denied to the Entrepreneurs of the region who were encouraged to venture and establish their units immediately after the policy was announced in the said Office Memorandum. By Clause 4 of the Notification imposing a condition that the exemption shall be from the date of the Notification or commencement of the production whichever is later has defeated the very purpose for which the Office Memorandum was issued. After the Office Memorandum was issued the respondents cannot recile the promises made in the said Office Memorandum. They are bound by Promissory Estoppel. This was also observed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Union of India and Ors. in writ, Appeal No. 219/2002 and another connected writ appeals. In the said writ appeals the Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the case where the benefit was already enjoyed by the party, but the same was withdrawn at a later stage. But in the instant case it may be mentioned that this Court has to deal with the matter which relates to the availing of the concessions from the date of commencement of production by the units/petitioners. But in the instant case it may be mentioned that this Court has to deal with the matter which relates to the availing of the concessions from the date of commencement of production by the units/petitioners. However, the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was already observed by the Division Bench by holding that the finding of the learned single Judge that the Government is bound by the principles of Promissory Estoppel. 31. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Notification was issued as per Section 5(a) Clause 5 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the Notification shall come into force from the date of publication in Official Gazette cannot be accepted as such Notification cannot be against the industrial policy which was duly approved by the Union Cabinet. The Notification ought to have been in accordance with the industrial policy laid down by the Central Government after due approval by the Cabinet and it cannot be undermined by issuing an executive Notification to make it effective from a later date which is not contemplated in the industrial policy as per the Office Memorandum. 32. Records also show that the Ministry of Industry has issued notification dated 1-6-1998 by introducing a scheme known as Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1997 and Notification dated 19-2-1999 introducing a Scheme known as Central Interest Subsidy Scheme 1997 granting different types of subsidies under the schemes for the period, from 24-12-1997 to 31-3-2007 to the industrial units in North Eastern Region. These schemes were promulgated after the said industrial policy was announced by the Central Govt. and the benefits were granted to industrial units w.e.f. 24-12-1997, the date of announcement of the New Industrial Policy by the Central Government. 33. For the aforesaid reasons I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 is against the said new industrial policy of the Union Government and the same is therefore not issued in accordance with the new industrial policy. Hence it is liable to be struck down. Accordingly the impugned Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 is declared contrary to the new industrial policy of the Union Government and the words "whichever is later in paragraph 4" of the impugned Notification is hereby struck down. Hence it is liable to be struck down. Accordingly the impugned Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 is declared contrary to the new industrial policy of the Union Government and the words "whichever is later in paragraph 4" of the impugned Notification is hereby struck down. The authorities are directed to issue fresh Notification giving effect to the Office Memorandum dated 24-12-1997 granting exemption from the date of Notification or commencement of production whichever is earlier. 34. The next point to be seen is with regard to the Notification dated 29-3-2000 by which the Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 was amended by including the scheme area I and II whereby the area in which the units of the petitioners were included. It is admitted position that the petitioners have established their units in the area as indicated above and that their date of commencement of production were duly intimated and recognised by the respondents in the Central Excise Department. Since the date of giving effect in the Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 has already been struck down, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits of the exemption under the new industrial policy as per the office Memorandum from the date of the commencement of the production and are entitled to all the exemptions under the new industrial policy. 35. With regard to the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 12 (S.H.) 2002 (5577/2000) and W.P. (C) No. 31 (S.H.) 2002 (95/2002), the units have started production of their enhanced capacity by 25% by installing one more furnace of 2 MET. capacity with effect from 12-4-2000. The alternative remedy is provided to them to approach the authorities by making an appeal to the appropriate authority as provided under Section 35 as well as 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, their grievances in the writ petitions cannot be decided in these writ petitions without availing their alternative remedy as aforesaid. The said writ petitions are therefore dismissed. 36. In the result, in view of the fact that the Notification No. 32/99 dated 8-7-1999 was struck down, the impugned letter and demand note issued by the respondents No. 7 and 8 to the writ petitioners are also set aside and quashed. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of and the Rule is made absolute. In favour of Department