JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, Actg. C.J. 1. The material facts concerning the litigation are set out hereunder in a brief and laconic manner. The Government of India, by official memorandum, dated 24.12.1997, formulated a new Industrial Policy declaring total exemption of Central Excise Duty in the Northeastern region for a period of 10 years. The silent object of the said policy is to stimulate development of industries in the Northeastern region, which continued to be the backward region. Therefore, in order to boost and stimulate industrial activity in the Northeastern region, the policy was formulated. The significant concessions offered in the policy are in the nature of fiscal incentives to the new industrial units and their substantial expansions. The Clause C of the policy reads thus: "FISCAL INCENTIVES TO NEW INDUSTRIAL UNITS AND THEIR SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. i. Government has approved for converting the growth centers and IIDs into a total Tax Free Zone for the next 10 years. All industrial activity in these zones would be free from Income Tax, Excise for a period of 10 years from the commencement of production. State Government would be requested to grant exemptions in respect of Sales Tax and Municipal Tax. ii. Industries located in the growth centers would also be given Capital Investment Subsidy at the rate of 15% of their investment in plant and machinery, subject to a maximum ceiling of Rs. 30.0 lakhs." 2. Pursuant to the said policy, dated 08.07.1997, a notification is issued by the Central Government, under Section 5A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, 'Act of 1944') and under Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (in short, 'Act of 1957'), wherein the nature of industries and the areas, which are entitled to benefits are specified. The Industrial Policy of 1997 came to be expired by 23.12.1997. The Government of India, again, issued another Industrial Policy on 01.04.2007 reiterating the same terms and conditions of the earlier Industrial Policy, dated 24.12.1997. A notification, dated 24.12.1997, under Section 5A(1) of the Act of 1944 and under Section 3(3)of the Act of 1957 was issued. Both the policies and the notifications issued, pursuant to the Industrial Policies envisaged 100% exemption of excise duty on the products manufactured in the North-eastern region. A notification, dated 24.12.1997, under Section 5A(1) of the Act of 1944 and under Section 3(3)of the Act of 1957 was issued. Both the policies and the notifications issued, pursuant to the Industrial Policies envisaged 100% exemption of excise duty on the products manufactured in the North-eastern region. The Government of India issued separate modified notifications under Section 5A of the Act of 1944 and under Section 3 of the Act of 1957, whereunder the concessions of exemption of 100% excise duty was modified and limited to the extent of value addition with varying rates of exemption of the central excise duty. 3. The respondents, in WA No. 243 of 2009 and WA No. 230 of 2009, aggrieved by the modified notifications, which withdrew the concessions earlier offered in the previous Industrial Policy and the notifications issued pursuant thereto, challenged the validity of the modified notifications as being bad in law. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the respondents and struck down the modified notifications, dated 27.03.2008, which were issued in respect of both the Industrial Policies. 4. The State aggrieved by the said judgment and order, has filed the two appeals. The other petitioners, who are also aggrieved by the modified notifications, have filed writ petitions challenging the validity of the said modified notifications. Since the question involved in the said writ petitions and the question involved in the writ appeals being substantially one and the same, the writ petitions have been clubbed along with the writ appeals for consideration. 5. Elaborate and enlightened arguments were canvassed by the Senior counsel, Dr. Ashok Saraf, Dr. B.P. Todi, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla and Mr. C.S. Lodha, counsel for the petitioners and they submitted the following grounds in support of the judgment of the learned Single Judge: (a) The Government of India, by virtue of the two Industrial Policies of 1997 and of 2007, had declared complete exemption from payment of excise duty on the products produced in the North-eastern region as a public policy to stimulate the economic development in the Northeastern region. The petitioners in the writ petitions and the respondents in the appeal inspired by the concessions offered by the Industrial Policy, have made substantial and heavy investments. In fact, the first Industrial Policy of the year 1997, operated successfully. The petitioners in the writ petitions and the respondents in the appeal inspired by the concessions offered by the Industrial Policy, have made substantial and heavy investments. In fact, the first Industrial Policy of the year 1997, operated successfully. The Government felt that a further extension of the said concession will boost the industrial activity in the North-eastern region. Therefore, the second Industrial Policy of 2007, on similar line, was published for a further period of 10 years. The Government in the year 2008 abruptly modified the rates of concession by the modified notifications, which is contrary to the terms of the Industrial Policy. The State cannot issue notifications contrary to the Industrial Policy in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suprabhat Steel Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 31 . (b) The State having held out a solemn promise to the investors to invest in the North-eastern region, declared concessions. Reposing faith in the promise, the investors have invested substantial sums of money in the North-eastern region. The abrupt withdrawal of concessions by the modified notifications, in question, is impermissible in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel enunciated by the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 , which applies to the facts of the cases. (c) Although the State, under Section 5A(1) of the Act of 1944, is invested with the power to curtail the concessions by modified notifications, but nonetheless such notifications should be in public interest The Supreme Court, in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) has laid down that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and yielded when equity so requires. When the public interest would be prejudiced, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked; however, it is observed that the Government cannot claim exemption from the liability to carry out the promise on some indefinite and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency. The Government cannot be the sole judge of its liability and repudiate it on an ex party appraisement of the circumstances. If the Government wants to resist the liability, it would have to disclose the facts and circumstances. The Government cannot be the sole judge of its liability and repudiate it on an ex party appraisement of the circumstances. If the Government wants to resist the liability, it would have to disclose the facts and circumstances. If the Government wants to resist the liability, it would be for the Court to decide if it is inequitable to enforce the liability against the Government. 6. In the instant case, the Government has not come up with any credible material to disable the petitioners and the respondents in the appeals to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The report of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) relied on by the State, points out only 41 cases of fraudulent availment of the benefit in Kutcch, J & K, H.P., Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal and Sikkim. The statistical details of the industries in the said areas and the result of the investigation is furnished as Annexure-A to the said report. For convenient reference, the said Annexure-A is extracted hereunder: ANNEXURE-A Sl. No. Name of the unit Place Duty Invoked Modus operandi Remarks 1 Welspun Stahl Rohren Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party Fraudulent of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption. Following detection of the case the unit withdrew their application of availment of exemption, CC has sanctioned prosecution against the unit. 2 GPT Steel Industries Ltd. Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001–CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption. Following Detection of the case the unit withdrew their application for availment of exemption. 3 Sanghi Industries Ltd. Kutcch 40.12 Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption, as the unit was already in existence even prior to issuance of Notification. Following detection of the case the unit voluntarily deposited Rs. 25.00 Crores SCN is being issued. 4 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd. Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption. Detailed report sent to CC. Case is yet to be decided by the committee. 5 Gran Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Kutcch No refund was clamed by the party Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption. Detailed report sent to CC. Case is yet to be decided by the committee. 6. Detailed report sent to CC. Case is yet to be decided by the committee. 5 Gran Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Kutcch No refund was clamed by the party Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption. Detailed report sent to CC. Case is yet to be decided by the committee. 6. Hinron Steel Industries Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party. Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption, as the investment made in Plant & Machinery was than 20 Crores. Detailed report sent to CC. Case is yet to be Decided On: cided by the Committee. 7. Kush Synthetics Ltd. Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption. Detailed report sent to CC, Case is yet to be Decided On: cided by the Committee. 8. Manaksia Ltd. Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party. Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption, as the value of investment in Plant & Machinery was highly inflated. Investigation is progress 9. Trendz Manufacturing Co. Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption, as the value of investment in Plant & Machinery was highly inflated. Investigation in progress. 10. Divine Petrochemicals Ltd. Kutcch No refund was claimed by the party Fraudulent availment of Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 without being entitled for the exemption, as the value of investment in Plaint & Machinery was highly inflated. Investigation in progress. 11. Bhagwati Metal J&K 47.26 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 12. Chetan Cabletronics (P) Ltd. J&K 0.02 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 13. HSS (Dinesh International Limited) J&K 0.07 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 14. J&K Metals J&K 0.13 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 15. HSS (Dinesh International Limited) J&K 0.07 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 14. J&K Metals J&K 0.13 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 15. Jain Metal Works J&K 1.27 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 16. Kashmir Wire J&K 0.35 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 17. M/S Shree Vaishnov Devi Metals Pvt. Ltd. J&K 0.05 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 18. M/S V.K. Metal works J&K 2.64 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 19. Nav Bharat Metals J&K 0.32 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 20. Shiv Giri Metal Indst. J&K 0.43 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis o invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 21. Shree Sita Ram Castings J&K 0.16 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 22. Shree Vaishno Devi Metals Pvt. Ltd. J&K 3.12 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 23. V.M.I. Industries J&K 1.31 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 24 Vaishno Metal & Allied Industries J&K 3.15 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 25 Viraj Inds., Jammu J&K 2.34 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 25 Viraj Inds., Jammu J&K 2.34 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 26 Him Valves & Regulators (P) Ltd. H.P 0.37 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 27 Swastik Wires H.P. 0.37 Cenvat credit has been fraudulently availed by the buyers on the basis of invoices issued by these companies without physical receipt of any inputs. 28 Koolminit Manufacturing Company, Industrial, Gouripur, Dlaubri, Assam. Assam 0.95 The unit showed bogus production and issued bogus invoices. Overvaluation of products. SCN issued. Case pending adjudication. 29. Ishan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Bymihat, Meghalaya Meghalaya 9.98 The unit showed bogus production and issued bogus invoices. Overvaluation of products. SCN issued. Case pending adjudication. 30. Khushi Aromatic, Cinamara, Jorhat, Assam Assam 4.34 Over-valuation of goods sold to their related unit situated in non-exempted area; thus facilitating availment of excess Cenvat credit. SCN issued. Case pending adjudication. 31. Dharampal Satyapat Limited, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati, Assam Assam 0.23 Over-valuation of goods sold to their related unit situated in non-exempted area; thus facilitating availment of excess Cenvat credit. SCN issued. Demand confirmed. 32. Shree Sai Rolling Mills (India) Ltd., Rangsakona, Bym- Meghalaya 1.00 Bogus sale of goods to their related unit situated in non-exempted ihat, Meghalaya area; thus facilitating availment of inadmissible Cevat credit. SCN is likely to be issued soon. 33. Trishul Hitech Industries, EPIP, Bymiat, Meghalaya Meghalaya 0.68 Bogus sale of goods to their related unit situated in non-exempted area; thus facilitating availment of inadmissible Cevat credit. SCN is likely to be issued soon. 34. Satyam Ispat, NH 52A, Banderdewa, Arunachal Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh 0.31 Bogus sale of goods to their related unit situated in non-exempted area; thus facilitating availment of inadmissible Cevat credit. SCN is likely to be issued soon. 35. Satya Megha Ispat (P) Ltd., Tamiul kuchi, Bymihat. Meghalaya 0.08 Bogus sale of goods to their related unit situated in non-exempted area; thus facilitating availment of inadmissible. Cevat credit. SCN is likely to be issued soon. 36. SCN is likely to be issued soon. 35. Satya Megha Ispat (P) Ltd., Tamiul kuchi, Bymihat. Meghalaya 0.08 Bogus sale of goods to their related unit situated in non-exempted area; thus facilitating availment of inadmissible. Cevat credit. SCN is likely to be issued soon. 36. Foto Industries, Meghalaya & M/S Photo Film Industries, Pondicherry Meghalaya 8.66 Goods claimed to have been manufactured at the Meghalays factory of M/S Foto Industries, Meghalaya were, in fact, being produced at their sister concern, namely, M/S Photo Film Ind, Pondicherry from where the goods were cleared without payment of duty to their customers. Case settled under settlement commission. Entire duty alongwith in terest has been realized. 37. M/S Matiz Metals Pvt. Ltd. Meghalaya 19.57 The unin has shown bogus purchase of raw materials availing Cenvat credit, bogus production and fraudulently issued invoices showing clearance of excisable goods in order to facilitate the buyers to avail Cenvat credit. One SCN to the party and 58 SCN’s to various manufacturers who have availed cenvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by the party have been served, Commissioner, Central Excise, Adjudication, Mumbai has been appointed as common and judicator. Case adjudication. 38. M/S Jindal Drugs Limited Jammu 44.26 Clearance of raw material (Crude Mentha Oil) without manufacturing excisable goods and by misdeclaring it as finished goods (Deter-pinated/ fractionated Mentha Oil) and wrongly claiming benefit of area based exemption and irregularly passing on a Cenvat credit to the purchaser. Goods are further exported by M/S Jindal Drugs Limited as merchant exporter claiming rebate of duty paid. SCN has been issued. Case is pending adjudication. The party has deposited Rs.2.00 crores during investigation. 39. M/S Sharp Menthol India Limited, Delhi New Delhi 25.00 Clearance of raw material (Crude Mentha Oil) without manufacturing excisable goods and by misdeclaring it as finished good (Deterpinated/fractionated Mentha Oil) and wrongly claiming benefit of area based exemption and irregularly passing on a Cenvat credit to the purchaser. Goods are further exported by M/S Jindal Drugs Ltd. as merchant exporter claiming rebate of duty paid. Investigating is under process. 40. M/S SPM Industries Jammu To be quantified Procurement of fake bills of raw materials and showing huge production out of this without actually doing any production. Issued invoices only without actually sending the goods in order to facilitate the buyers of invoices fraudulently avail Cenvat credit. Under investigation. 41. Investigating is under process. 40. M/S SPM Industries Jammu To be quantified Procurement of fake bills of raw materials and showing huge production out of this without actually doing any production. Issued invoices only without actually sending the goods in order to facilitate the buyers of invoices fraudulently avail Cenvat credit. Under investigation. 41. M/S Bio Veda Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Guwahati 0.29 The unit has shown bogus production and fraudulently issued bogus invoices against which inadmissible refund of duty was claimed. SCN issued. Case pending adjudication. 7. On the basis of the above materials, it is argued that in respect of North-eastern area, there is not even a single case of detection of fraudulent availment of benefit. The cases of bogus production, overvaluation, bogus sale of goods and fraudulent import of goods by the industries from its sister concerned of other area, which has no exemption, has been alleged. But except 2/3 cases, in rest of the cases, the adjudication is pending. The report of the DGCEI, has given the following reasons in support of the impugned modified notifications: "8. To sum up, in order to minimize misuse of area based excise duty exemption applicable to J & K, North East and Kutch areas (by way of bogus production, bogus purchases of input, purchase of input against non duty paid invoices, overvaluation etc.), following proposals are submitted for modification of existing scheme. i) To provide that refund of excise duty would be allowed only to the extent of duty payable on the value addition made by the units in these areas. ii) The quantum of value addition may be determined by fixing an all industry ratio based on CENVAT Credit and PLA(Cash) ration for non-POL items with an option to assessee to get the ratio fixed based on actual financial data from audited profit and loss account." 8. It is submitted that the above said fraudulent and dishonest acts of cheating by the industries, if any, can very well be verified at the time of refund and also by periodical inspections, the Department can detect the acts of cheating, if any, indulged by the industries. There are investigatory and regulatory mechanism envisaged under the Central Excise Act, which can effectively take care of the above instances of malfeasance and misfeasance. There are investigatory and regulatory mechanism envisaged under the Central Excise Act, which can effectively take care of the above instances of malfeasance and misfeasance. Merely because there are strong instances of misuse, it would not be a valid ground to call it in public interest to partially withdraw the concessions. 9. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of Gujarat High Court in the case of SAL Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in2010 (260) E.L.T. 185 (Guj.). A particular, reference is made to the observations in paragraph 9 of the judgment of Hon'ble D.A. Mehata, J. The various types of allegations of misuse and fraud, which are sought to be urged in the present case, were similarly urged in the case aforementioned. In paragraphs 9, 25, 26, 32, 115 and 117 the learned Judge has extracted different cannons upon which the modified notification of 2008 came to be issued. Paragraph 9, 25, 26, 32, 115 and 117 are extracted hereunder: "9. On behalf of Respondents it was submitted that in the field of taxation a wide discretion vests in the Legislature to classify items for tax purpose, and same principle be applied for granting exemption and/or withdrawal, and/or modification of the exemption. Under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) Central Government is vested with statutory powers to issue necessary Notification to grant exemption from duty of Central Excise on being satisfied that it is necessary in public interest so to do. As such Notification is placed before both the Houses of Parliament the Notification would have statutory flavor. There is no limitation on the power available under Section 5Aof the Act. The power to grant exemption by its very nature permits revocation, annulment, modification or variation. It was submitted that the provision for granting refund of duty paid in cash had prompted certain unscrupulous manufacturers to indulge in different types of tax evasion tactics. According to learned Counsel on the basis of analysis of cases booked by the Excise Department as well as representations received from Industry Association following modus operandi was broadly followed: (i) Reporting of bogus production by mere issuance of sales invoice without actual production of goods and supply/clearance of excisable goods. According to learned Counsel on the basis of analysis of cases booked by the Excise Department as well as representations received from Industry Association following modus operandi was broadly followed: (i) Reporting of bogus production by mere issuance of sales invoice without actual production of goods and supply/clearance of excisable goods. This would result in availment of CENVAT credit by buyers of such excisable goods in other parts of the country without actual production being carried out and in absence of actual receipt of goods. (ii) Reporting of bogus production by such units in these areas where actual production takes place elsewhere in the country. (iii) Overvaluation of goods resulting in availment of excess of credit by buyer. Goods are supplied by manufacturers, importers to these units without issuance of sales invoice and these are backed by bogus sales invoice issued by traders who do not undertake actual supply of goods. The actual supplier of these goods issued bogus duty paid invoices to other manufacturers who take credit based on such invoices without receipt of goods. To elaborate the above modus operandi, I beg to give the following illustration: 1. It was submitted on the basis of illustrations set out in the Affidavit in Reply that the same are general illustrations of misuse of exemption, which exemption was meant to be available to genuine manufacturers. That units in the Kutch region were wanting to pay maximum amount of duty in cash so that refund of the entire amount can be claimed. A study was undertaken to verify this aspect and find out percentage of excise duty paid in cash as well as percentage of excise duty paid by utilizing CENVAT credit by similar units located elsewhere when compared with units situated in the notified area availing exemption. That the units in the specified area were paying high percentage of duty in cash when compared to payment of duty on an all India basis in relation to manufacture of similar goods. The Government therefore realized that purpose of exemption was being defeated, exemption being available only in respect of genuine manufacturing activities carried out in specified areas. That the policy manifesting the intention of the Government was to grant excise duty exemption only to actual value addition made in the specified areas. Hence the exercise of powers under Section 5A of the Act. 2. That the policy manifesting the intention of the Government was to grant excise duty exemption only to actual value addition made in the specified areas. Hence the exercise of powers under Section 5A of the Act. 2. It was submitted that as a result of the modification the manufacturers are required to pay duty on the full value of goods manufactured and cleared in the same manner as per existing scheme, but refund would be granted only to the extent of duty paid on the actual value addition according to the percentages fixed in the Notification, or as may be fixed as a special case as provided in the Notification. In the written submissions filed by the Counsel the effect of modification is stated in the following words: "The effect of modification is as follows: (i) It is submitted that genuine manufacturers would not at all be affected inasmuch as they would be getting the refund of same amount under the present modification as also in the proposed scheme. (ii) Unscrupulous manufacturers reporting bogus production was resorting to fictitious purchase of inputs on the strength of invoices which are not duty paid invoices would be getting excise duty refund equivalent only to the duty paid on actual value addition made by such manufacturers who have industries in these specified areas. (iii) The excise duty exemption would be available only to the extent of actual value addition made in these areas and not for the value of raw materials manufactured in other part of the country, which are received by the units in these areas without cover of duty paying invoices". 3. The methodology of calculating value addition has also been explained in part 3 of written submissions. In support of the submissions made as regards the exercise of legislative power and Courts not being entitled to question policy decision as well as on inapplicability of principle of promissory estoppel. "25. Thus, the scheme which emerges on a plain reading of Section 38A of the Act is that even in a case where a Rule, Notification, etc. is amended, etc., unless the amending Rule, Notification, etc. specifically denotes a contrary in tendon, everything that has taken place under the Rule, Notification, etc. prior to amendment shall continue to its logical end. Thus, the scheme which emerges on a plain reading of Section 38A of the Act is that even in a case where a Rule, Notification, etc. is amended, etc., unless the amending Rule, Notification, etc. specifically denotes a contrary in tendon, everything that has taken place under the Rule, Notification, etc. prior to amendment shall continue to its logical end. This provision is not only a saving provision, but is a provision which correspondingly obligates both the person who was a beneficiary under the existing Rule, Notification, etc. and the authority under the existing Rule, Notification, etc. to continue to comply with the requirements of the Rule, Notification, etc. as it existed even after amendment once the parties have duly done anything or suffered under the existing Rule, Notification, etc. An Assessee, who is required to act in a particular manner as specified by the Rule, Notification, etc. as existing before the amendment, is obliged in law to act accordingly, and correspondingly the authority is equally obliged in law to act as if the amendment had not taken place, such act on part of the authority being not only in relation to collection of revenue and other attendant provisions like penalty, etc., but also in relation to the entitlements of an Assessee. This provision, namely, Section 38A of the Act incorporates in the statute the principle of a completed contract between the parties, whereunder the parties are obliged to fulfill their respective part of the concluded contract, and in case of failure, the Court may step in and direct the defaulting party to specifically perform his part of the promise. To put it differently, one may say that the principle of promissory estoppel, as normally understood, has been incorporated in the statute. 26. Hence, neither by virtue of powers under Section 5A of the Act, nor by virtue of operation of Section 38A of the Act can the Respondent authority be permitted to resile from the promise statutorily made by way of notification issued under Section 5A(1) of the Act, being Original Notification No. 39 of 2001 : dated 31.7.2001. The Petitioner had acted as required by the Original Notification and when the Original Notification with attendant circumstances is read in context the subsequent notifications dated 27.3.2008 and 10.6.2008 do not indicate any intention to the contrary, that is contrary to the object, intent and purpose of the Original Notification. The Petitioner had acted as required by the Original Notification and when the Original Notification with attendant circumstances is read in context the subsequent notifications dated 27.3.2008 and 10.6.2008 do not indicate any intention to the contrary, that is contrary to the object, intent and purpose of the Original Notification. Thus by operation of law, namely, provisions of Section 38A of the Act, more particularly Clauses (b) and (c) of the said section read together, it is not possible to uphold the action of the Respondents in issuing subsequent Notifications dated 27.3.2008 and 10.62008. 32. Thus when one considers the entire scheme as a whole it is more than abundantly clear that there is hardly any scope for misuse of the scheme. Furthermore, the period of the scheme is a self limiting one and only those manufacturers who have complied with the requirements of the Original Notification are entitled to the benefit. The said manufacturers therefore cannot be called upon to make payment of duty and seek a smaller amount of refund under the scheme considering the purpose of granting exemption. One of the purposes that is apparently discernible is to ensure that during gestation period a new industrial unit is able to recoup the capital outlay involved in setting up a new industrial unit so as to ensure that the new unit does not face cash crunch during the initial period and circulating capital is available to such new unit. 115. It appears that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and its scope and ambit is by now well settled and the same can be summarized as under: (1) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is to be treated as a preserved right, but such right is subject to the limitation that - (2) Such promise or the representation made must be given under the authority of law and in consonance with the statute and not unauthorisedly or in contravention to any statutory provision on the principle that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. (3) Such cannot be permitted to be invoked against the overwhelming public interest. (4) The Legislature or the Parliament has power for diluting its effect retrospectively by enacting any law. 117. (3) Such cannot be permitted to be invoked against the overwhelming public interest. (4) The Legislature or the Parliament has power for diluting its effect retrospectively by enacting any law. 117. If the record produced on behalf of the Central Government is considered, it appears that none is concerning to the object which was at the time of formulation of the policy or achievement of the said object. On the aspects of public interest, the ground as sought to be canvassed is that the duty paid in such area where incentive provided was higher in comparison to the other places and it was orally contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that such would show that the exemption policy was being misused or there were manipulations for getting the refund. The contention considered in either way may at the most attract for initiation of the action in accordance with law against the industry concerned, if there is manipulation or abuse of the policy. Even if it is considered that some units had misused or had abused the policy, the same can hardly be said to be a valid ground for withdrawing the benefit conferred upon the bona fide industrial units. Further, there is no satisfactory material demonstrated for such purpose. Even if such contention is considered for the sake of examination, it can hardly be termed as overwhelming public interest on the part of the Central Government to prejudice the rights of the new entrepreneurs who have altered their position by establishing industries based on such incentive. Further, as observed by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment in the case of Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (supra), such ground cannot be uphold as sustained." 10. The reference is also made to paragraphs No. 21, 22 & 28 of the decision of the High Court of Sikkim in Unicorn Industries Vs. Union of India, reported in 2013 (289) E.L.T. 117 (Sikkim), wherein it was observed as under: "21. The power reserved by the Government namely, the Government reserves the right to modify any part of the policy in public interest, therefore, may, in general, be correct and work out only where such superior or larger public interest warrants to do so. Union of India, reported in 2013 (289) E.L.T. 117 (Sikkim), wherein it was observed as under: "21. The power reserved by the Government namely, the Government reserves the right to modify any part of the policy in public interest, therefore, may, in general, be correct and work out only where such superior or larger public interest warrants to do so. When such a contention arises, the Court is under obligation to examine as to whether such an exercise is within the scope and extent of power available under Section 5A of the Act. While examining so, the fact that the power under Section 5A of the Act is essentially a power to grant exemption in relation to duty of excise which is otherwise livable under other provisions of the Act cannot be disregarded. Therefore, in exercise of such power under Section 5A of the Act, the authority cannot be permitted to take recourse to the principles applicable for determining whether duty is correctly levied or not. 22. From any angle, once power under Section 5A of the Act has been exercised and exemption granted, a larger/superior public interest has to be shown for curtailing/modifying/withdrawing an exemption already granted and in such eventuality, the onus shall be on the Revenue and the same cannot be discharged by merely referring to the contention that the petitioners/assessees are claiming the exemption on bogus ground, in surmise. 28. In a case where the State invited new industries by offering concessional power tariff and thereafter withdrew the same on the ground that there was power theft on a large scale the Apex Court in case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited (supra), after detailed analysis of the law on the subject, struck down the action of the State by invoking principle of promissory estoppel and in the process stated: "20. In this 21st century, when there is global economy, the question of faith is very important. Government offers certain benefits to attract the entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurs act on those beneficial offers. Thereafter, the Government withdraws those benefits. This will seriously affect the credibility of the Government and would show the shortsightedness of the governance. Therefore, in order to keep the faith of the people, the Government or its instrumentality should abide by their commitments. Government offers certain benefits to attract the entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurs act on those beneficial offers. Thereafter, the Government withdraws those benefits. This will seriously affect the credibility of the Government and would show the shortsightedness of the governance. Therefore, in order to keep the faith of the people, the Government or its instrumentality should abide by their commitments. In this context, the action taken by the appellant-Corporation in revoking the benefits given to the entrepreneurs in the hill areas will sadly reflect their credibility and people will not take the word of the Government. That will shake the faith of the people in the governance. Therefore, in order to keep the faith and maintain good governance it is necessary that whatever representation is made by the Government or its instrumentality which induces the other party to act, the Government should not be permitted to withdraw from that. This is a matter of faith." 11. It is argued that in view of the above decisions and the decisions of the Apex Court referred to therein, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is sound and proper and does not call for any interference. 12. Per contra, Mr. R. Dubey, the Standing Counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents in the writ petitions strenuously submitted that the modified notifications are issued because of the instances of misuse of the concessions. A thorough inquiry was held by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), the Ministry of Finance also devoted its attention to the problem of misuse. 13. The counsel has referred to the findings of the inquiry and the report, which is produced in support of the affidavit before the learned Single Judge. It is reported that there are about 587 units enjoying the facility of exemption in J & K, Northeast, Sikkim and Kutcch and a sum of Rs. 2,427 crores has been doled out as complete exemption of excise duty to these units. The material portion of the report referred to by the counsel for the State are extracted hereunder for convenient reference: "3.1. Misuse of Exemption Scheme: DGCL have booked large number of cases of misuse of exemption scheme by units in J & K, North-East etc. 2,427 crores has been doled out as complete exemption of excise duty to these units. The material portion of the report referred to by the counsel for the State are extracted hereunder for convenient reference: "3.1. Misuse of Exemption Scheme: DGCL have booked large number of cases of misuse of exemption scheme by units in J & K, North-East etc. Some of the industry associations, namely, All India Zinc Manufacturers Association, Federation of Southern India Manufacturers scale evasion by units in these areas, which have adversely affected units in other parts of the country. Analysis of cases booked by DGCEL and as per representations of the Associations following types of misuse have been noticed: i) Reporting of bogus production, issue of bogus sales invoices by the manufactures in these areas and availment of CENVAT Credit by buyers in another part of the country without receipt of goods; ii) Overvaluation of goods and availing excess credit by the buyer; iii) Reporting of bogus production by units in these areas, whereas actual production takes place at other unit of same manufacturer in another part of the country; iv) Purchase of inputs on non-duty paid invoice (invoices issued by traders), even though goods are duty paid. The duty paid invoices are sold in the market to other manufacturers for availing CENVAT Credit on such invoices without receipt of goods. The DGCEL has booked involving duty evasion of Rs. 178 Crores for above types of cases. 3.2. Problem of Zinc Oxide manufacturers: The All India Zinc Oxide manufacturers Association has represented an interesting problem. They manufacture zinc oxide and zinc dross is their main input. As per a Supreme Court judgment, the zinc dross is not an excisable product Therefore, the zinc oxide manufacturers in other part of the country are required to pay almost full duty in cash as no CENVAT Credit is available to them on the zinc dross. But units manufacturing zinc oxide in J & K even though they pay same amount of duty, get refund of full duty and also recover the duty amount from customers and this results in making the produce of other units totally uncompetitive. This is explained with the following data: Hence, a manufacturer in J & K is able to get excise duty exemption of Rs. 27 per kg, as against value addition of Rs. This is explained with the following data: Hence, a manufacturer in J & K is able to get excise duty exemption of Rs. 27 per kg, as against value addition of Rs. 13 per kg and their product becomes cheaper by Rs. 27/- per kg and this has badly hit the units in other parts of the country. 3.3. Evidences of trend of misuse across the industry: As discussed above, the units in these areas prefer to pay maximum amount in cash, as it is available as refund to them in the next month. Further, whenever they show bogus production and bogus sale, they also show bogus purchases by getting purchase invoices of traders. Further, even if their purchases are genuine, they may like to purchase against non-excise duty paid invoices as it reduces their cost of purchase. By adopting all such modus-operandi, the units in these areas avail less CENVAT Credit and pay maximum amount in cash. 3.4. From the above analysis, it is very clear that almost all the industry sectors in these areas are paying maximum duty through PLA and difference with all India ration is quite alarming. The above analysis coupled with the details of cases booked by DGCEL and representation of industry associations further prove that there appears to be a general tendency to bring raw materials on non-duty paid invoices or to show bogus production or bogus purchase to maximize payment of duty in cash. In fact, when other units in the country avails CENVAT Credit of say 68% of total duty (32% in PLA), there cannot be any plausible reasons to avail credit to say 24% (76% in PLA) by units in these areas. This analysis clearly brings out a fact that misuse of excise duty concessions is rampant and it is across the industry. 4.1. It can be argued that above discussed misuses are on account of administrative failure to tackle evasion. However, when the trend of evasion is seen across the industry, such misuse cannot be handled with any amount of enforcement and the only available option is to mink of modifying the scheme itself Moreover, investigation of such cases is very time consuming as each purchase and sale transaction along with transport records, which involve a large number of parties at different part of the country, is required to be investigated." 14. It is argued that specific instances of misuse were detected and cases have been booked. The Personal Ledger Account (PLA) referred to in the report is as follows: 15. The percentage of excise duty paid in the exempted areas is highest when compared to similar industries in the area where there is no exemption as per the PLA (supra). The difference in percentage is shown so high that sometimes it is three times higher the duty is paid in the areas where exemption is granted. Such a collection of revenue was found to be on account of the reasons that bogus production, overvaluation, procurement of raw material without invoice etc. Keeping in view of the recommendations found in the report, the Cabinet found that grant of indiscriminate exemption will lead to misuse. In order to prevent such malpractice, the formula of value addition has been introduced in granting partial concessions to the industries, which enjoy exemptions under Section 5A of the Act of 1944. 16. Mr. Dubey, Standing Counsel, Central Excise Department, submitted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel invoked by the opponents is untenable. There have been instances of gross misuse. In a superior public interest, in order to avoid dishonest loss caused to the public revenue, the modified notifications have been brought into force with a sincere object of helping the industrialist on the one hand and also to protect the revenue of the State on the other. Hence, argued that the modified notifications in the context of the report of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) cannot be assailed as done arbitrarily and without public interest. 17. On stern consideration of the rival submissions made at the Bar, it becomes very essential for this Court to determine whether there is prompting of public interest involved in the modified notifications. 18. The State does not dispute the Industrial Policies of 1997 and 2007 and also the grant of concession pursuant to the said notifications. However, the dispute revolves round the justification for issuing the modified notifications, in question. It is to be seen whether any superior public interest is evident, which prompted the Government to issue the modified notifications. 18. The State does not dispute the Industrial Policies of 1997 and 2007 and also the grant of concession pursuant to the said notifications. However, the dispute revolves round the justification for issuing the modified notifications, in question. It is to be seen whether any superior public interest is evident, which prompted the Government to issue the modified notifications. The counsel for the State mainly relies upon the report of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) and the Annexure-A, as extracted (supra), which gives the details of malfeasance and misfeasance committed by some of the industries, in question, in J & K, Northeast and Sikkim. The instances of misuse noticed in the inquiry are hardly consists of about 41 cases and most of the cases, as per Annexure-A, are still under adjudication, it is not finally decided whether the industries concerned in the Northeastern region are guilty of any misuse. The argument that because of the misuse, the concession had to be withdrawn does not appear to be tenable, on deeper scrutiny of the materials placed before the Court. It is not as if that the State and the Department does not have any mechanism or machinery for detecting malpractice of bogus production by diligent periodical inspection. 19. Where the goods do not carry MRP, with reference to the marginal cost and the prevalent market price of similar goods in comparison to the market price of similar goods, the malpractice of over valuation can be detected at the time of refund. 20. With regard to the allegation of importing of goods from the sister units from some other area to the exempted area, the same could also be easily detected because, under the VAT Act, the transit permits have to be taken if false transit permit has been taken for transfer of consignment from one unit to the sister unit in the exempted area, in such cases, it could be easily detected as a case of malpractice. That apart, the transit of goods is well regulated under the VAT Act, and the transit passes, documents of title of goods consigned have to be taken and that at every check post, there would be a check. It is not that easy for an industrialist to flout the law and import the goods for the purpose of evading Central Excise duty as alleged. 21. It is not that easy for an industrialist to flout the law and import the goods for the purpose of evading Central Excise duty as alleged. 21. The scheme of the policy and the notifications insist that there should be payment of the excise duty and thereafter, they should apply for refund. The Department, at the time of refund, can very well thoroughly scrutinize all these aspects regarding misuse and malpractice alleged. Therefore, the allegation that for the instances of malpractice stated above, there has to be a partial withdrawal of concessions, does not appear to be justifiable ground. The observations made by the Gujarat High Court in this regard, as extracted above, also take a similar opinion and we do not see any good reason to differ with that opinion. 22. With regard to the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which is almost a well settled principle of law, in view of the decision of the Apex Courts the State has failed to show any prejudice to the superior public interest and that there is also no contra legislation in this regard. The respondents and the petitioners have all set up industries allured by the promise of tax concessions and made substantially investments. The setting up of an industry and commencement of production requires a thorough compliance of formalities and check up by every Department. The industries, in question, have complied with all the requirements of law and have set up industries and all of them have started production. The allegation of misuse, if really a genuine ground, it would have come to the notice of the Department much earlier before the declaration of the second Industrial Policy in the year 2007, the modified notifications are brought into force within a short span of time. If really there is any infringement or misuse or malpractice, the State would have given serious attention and would not have issued the second Industrial Policy of 2007 in haste. Within a span of a year after the issuance of notification of Industrial Policy of 2007, the change in the stand to withdraw the concessions does not appear to be sound and proper and the grounds made out are so feeble and fragile which do not offer a concrete objective material for this Court to believe that really superior public interest prompted the issuance of modified notifications. 23. 23. For the reasons and discussions made above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed and the writ petitions are allowed. All the industries set up pursuant to the policy of 1997 and 2007 shall continue to enjoy the benefits of full exemption as per the policy and the notifications. The writ appeals, writ petitions and the connected miscellaneous cases are accordingly disposed of.