JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as Mr. G. Das, learned counsel representing respondent No. 7. 2. The decision of the State Level Committee (SLC) adopted in its 36th meeting held on 05.10.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for reimbursement of Central Capital Investment Subsidy under the “Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007” (for short, the Scheme of 2007) is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and the petitioner No 2 is one of its partners. The undisputed facts emerging from the record of this case are that the petitioner No. 1 firm had set up its printing press after obtaining trade licence from the Gauhati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati on 16.06.2006. The press was initially operated from a 1000 sq. ft. area situated in the ground floor of a building located at Rajgarh Road. Guwahati in the district of Kamrup, Assam. The petitioner No. 1 received Industrial Entrepreneur's Memorandum (IEM) acknowledgement from the Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India on 19.07.2006 and thereafter, started commercial production with effect from 01.07.2007 In order to avail the benefits promised under the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (NEIIPP, 2007) the petitioner No. 1 firm had registered itself with the Industries Department and accordingly, certificates of registration dated 08.08.2008 and 29.11.2008 were also issued to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 4. Based on such registration, the petitioner No. 1 had applied for Central Capital Investment Subsidy (CCIS) before the respondent No. 5, which had received the approval of the State Level Committee (SLC) on 18.12.2009 pursuant whereto, an amount of Rs. 96,82,343.00 was released in its favour. 4. Being further attracted by the incentives offered under the NEIIPP, 2007, the petitioner No. 1 had acquired a bigger plot of land at Hatisila, Panikhaiti for the purpose of expanding its unit and thereafter, had obtained a loan for an amount of Rs. 2006.58 lakhs from the Punjab National Bank for expansion of the existing unit. 4. Being further attracted by the incentives offered under the NEIIPP, 2007, the petitioner No. 1 had acquired a bigger plot of land at Hatisila, Panikhaiti for the purpose of expanding its unit and thereafter, had obtained a loan for an amount of Rs. 2006.58 lakhs from the Punjab National Bank for expansion of the existing unit. After completion of the civil work, the petitioner No. 1 had shifted the unit to its own premise at Panikhaiti. Commercial production in the new unit had commenced with effect from 25.08.2010 The petitioner No. 1 firm had also obtained Industrial Entrepreneur's Memorandum from the respondent No. 1 for the expanded unit (new unit) which was issued to it on 01.09.2013 and the respondent No. 4 had issued a certificate dated 23.02.2011 wherein the date of commencement of commercial production after expansion has been shown as 25.08.2010 Upon commencement of production in its new unit, the petitioner No. 1 firm had made an online application on 11.03.2011 claiming CCIS under the NEIIPP, 2007 for an amount of Rs. 6,92,47,605.05 being 30% of the total amount of Rs. 23,08,25,350.19 additionally invested by the petitioner No. 1 for procuring the plants and machineries so as to set up the new unit. However, despite receipt of the application form and notwithstanding the fact that inspection of the unit was also carried out as far back as on 12.07.2014, no step had been taken for disbursement of the CCIS subsidy. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3642/2015. By the order dated 18.09.2015 passed in I.A No. 1113/2015 arising out of WP(C) No. 3692/2015, this Court had issued a direction to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Industries and Commerce, to convene a meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC) within a period of 14 days and take a decision on the claim for CCIS lodged by the writ petitioners. In terms of the order dated 18.09.2015, an emergent meeting of the SLC was held on 05.10.2015 whereby, a resolution was adopted rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the original unit had commenced commercial production on 01.07.2007 i.e. after 01.04.2007, and hence, the same cannot be treated as an existing unit. As such, according to the SLC, the petitioner No. 1 would not be entitled to CCIS for carrying out expansion of its unit. As such, according to the SLC, the petitioner No. 1 would not be entitled to CCIS for carrying out expansion of its unit. 5. By referring to the notification dated 27.07.2007 Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, has submitted that the said notification makes provision for granting CCIS to the new industrial units as well as the existing units which are located in the North Eastern Region and that goes for substantial expansion. In the present case, submits Mr. Goswami, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 firm had carried out expansion of its existing unit by making substantial capital investment and accordingly applied for CCIS under the scheme. The learned senior counsel submits that it was a clear case of expansion of an existing unit and having regard to the nature and extent of expansion carried out by the petitioner No 1, the unit set up at Painikhaiti ought to have been recognized as expansion of an existing unit for the purpose of granting the claim of CCIS. 6. Mr. Goswami has forcefully argued that there is nothing in the policy document or the notification dated 27.07.2007 that prohibits CCIS claim in case of additional investment made towards expansion of either an existing unit or a new unit. Therefore, the view taken by the SLC in its meeting dated 05.10.2015 was clearly erroneous and hence, is liable to be interfered with by this court. So as to buttress his argument, Mr. Goswami has also referred to the answer given by the then Minister of Commerce and Industries, Government of India, on the floor of the Parliament in response to the unstarred question No. 665 dated 02.03.2016, wherein the departmental Minister had categorically stated that the Scheme of 2007 would provide for subsidy at the rate of 30% for investment in plant and machinery or additional investment in plant and machinery by way of substantial expansion to all new units as well as existing units. 7. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, in their submissions, have reiterated the stand of the respondents as projected in their respective counter-affidavits, in their attempt to justify the decision of the SLC adopted in its meeting held on 05.10.2015 Mr. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, in their submissions, have reiterated the stand of the respondents as projected in their respective counter-affidavits, in their attempt to justify the decision of the SLC adopted in its meeting held on 05.10.2015 Mr. Keyal has, however, confirmed that there is no notification of the Central Government which specifically prohibits a new unit from claiming CCIS on account of expansion activities carried out by making additional investment on plants and machineries at a subsequent stage. 8. As alluded to above, the core question falling for consideration of this court in this case is whether the additional investment made by the petitioner No 1 towards procuring the plants and machineries for expansion of its unit at Painikhaiti would qualify for the CCIS under the notification dated 27.07.2007? In order to answer the said question, it would be necessary to make a brief reference to the Industrial Policies announced by the Central Government for promotion of industrial activities in the North Eastern Region from time to time. 9. On 24.12.1997 the Government of India, through the Ministry of Industries, had announced its new Industrial Policy for the North Eastern Region viz. North East Industrial Policy, 1997 (NEIP,1997) with a view to stimulate development of industries in the region. Pursuant to the NEIP, 1997, a number of notifications were issued by the concerned Ministries announcing different packages of incentives including transport subsidies, capital investment subsidies and other benefits. The NEIP 1997 came to an end in the year 2007. 10. In order to give further boost to industrialisation in the North Eastern Region, the NEIP, 1997 was revised and the Government of India came forward with the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007 announcing certain new packages of fiscal incentives and other concessions for the North Eastern Region. The NEIIPP, 2007 was to remain in force for a period of ten years with effect from 01.04.2007 11. With a view to implement the NEIIPP, 2007, the Government of India had also come up with three Schemes to operate under the NEIIPP, 2007. Those are (i) Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007(ii) Central Interest Subsidy Scheme and (iii) Central Comprehensive Insurance Scheme. With a view to implement the NEIIPP, 2007, the Government of India had also come up with three Schemes to operate under the NEIIPP, 2007. Those are (i) Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007(ii) Central Interest Subsidy Scheme and (iii) Central Comprehensive Insurance Scheme. The Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, which came into effect from 01.04.2007 so as to remain in force till 31.03.2017, was notified in the Official Gazette by issuing notification dated 27.07.2007 12. Clause 3 of the Notification dated 27.07.2007 deals with applicability of the CCIS claims. The said clause would be relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore, is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “3. Applicability:- Unless otherwise specified, all new industrial units as well as existing units which go in for substantial expansion and are located anywhere in NER, will be eligible for capital investment subsidy under this Scheme. The Scheme will also be applicable to the following service sector activities/industries:- I. Service Sector: (i) Hotels (not below Two Star category), adventure and leisure sports including ropeways; (ii) Medical and health services in the nature of nursing homes with a minimum capacity of 25 beds and old-age homes; (iii) Vocational training institutes such as institutes for hotel management, catering and food crafts, entrepreneurship development, nursing and para-medical, civil aviation related training, fashion, design and industrial training. II. Bio-technology industry. III. Power Generating Industries: Power Generating plants upto 10 MW based on both conventional and non-conventional sources. 3.(a) The Scheme shall not be applicable to the industries listed in Annexure-I.” 13. Clause 4 of the Notification dated 27.07.2007 lays down the definition of new and existing industrial units which reads as follows:- “4. Definitions: (a) ‘Industrial unit’ means any industrial undertaking, suitable servicing unit other than that run departmentally by Government. (b) ‘New Industrial Unit’ means an industrial unit for the setting up of which effective steps were not taken prior to 1.4.2007 (c) ‘Existing Industrial Unit’ means an industrial unit for the setting up of which effective steps were taken prior to 1.4.2007 (d) ‘Substantial expansion’ means increase in the value of fixed capital investment in plant and machinery of an industrial unit by not less than 25%, for the purpose of expansion of capacity/modernisation and diversification. (e) ‘Effective steps’ means one or more of the following steps:— (i) that 10% or more of the capital issued for the industrial unit has been paid up. (ii) that any part of the factory building has been constructed. (iii) that a firm order has been placed for any plant and machinery required for the industrial unit. (f) “Fixed Capital Investment’ means investment in ‘plant and machinery’, for the purpose of this scheme.” 14. Clause 5 of the Notification dated 27.07.2007 provides for the extent of admissible subsidy. Clause 5 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- “5. Extent of admissible Subsidy:- All eligible industrial units located anywhere in the North Eastern Region shall be given capital investment subsidy at the rate of 30% of their investment in Plant and Machinery or additional investment in Plant and Machinery. Such subsidy will be applicable to units in the private sector, joint sector, cooperative sector as well as the units set up by the State Governments concerned of the North Eastern Region. The limit for automatic approval of subsidy at this rate would be Rs. 1.5 crore. For grant of capital investment subsidy higher than Rs. 1.5 crore but upto a maximum of Rs. 30 crore, there will be an Empowered Committee set up vie O.M F. No. 10(3)/2007-DBA-II/NER dated 21st May 2007. (Annexure-II). Proposals which are eligible for a subsidy higher than Rs. 30 crore will be placed by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion before the Union Cabinet for its consideration and approval.” 15. The dispute in the instant case arose when the petitioner No. 1 had claimed 30% CCIS on account of additional investments made in the plants and machineries towards expansion of its unit which had commenced production with effect from 25.08.2010 16. Relying upon the definition given in Clause 4 of the Notification dated 27.07.2007, the SLC has held that since the industrial unit of the petitioner No. 1 had commenced production on 01.07.2007 i.e. a date which falls after 01.04.2007, it is not an existing industrial unit within the meaning of the Notification dated 27.07.2007 The SLC was of the view that under the Notification dated 27.07.2007, CCIS was permissible only in case of expansion of the “existing units” and the said benefit would not be available to the “new units” undergoing expansion. The operative part of the minutes of the SLC meeting dated 05.10.2015 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “The committee examined the CCIS claim and made the following observations:- 1. M/s. Bhabani Print & Publications came up as a new unit in the Small Scale Sector and started its commercial production on 01-07-2007. The Unit had submitted its claim as a new unit under NEIIPP, 2007. Their claim for Capital Investment Subsidy was approved by the SLC on 18-12-2009 and paid thereafter. 2. Subsequently, the unit has made additional investment and started its Commercial Production on 25.08.2010 after expansion. The Unit submitted its claim for Capital Investment Subsidy on additional investment on 14-03-2011. In order to examine the claim, the SLC examined the provisions of the NEIIPP, 2007 (Policy) and subsequent notifications as mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs. 3. In pursuance of the NEIIPP, 2007, a scheme titled as Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 (in short CCISS, 2007) was notified by Notification No. 10(3)/2007-DBA-II/NER dated 27th July, 2007. Clause 3 of the CCISS, 2007 reads as under: “Applicability:- Unless otherwise specified, all new industrial units as well as existing units which go in for substantial expansion and are located anywhere in NER, will be eligible for capital investment subsidy under this Scheme……” 4. The clause of Applicability reveals that only the existing units which go in for substantial expansion are entitled to Capital Investment Subsidy. The word “existing units” have been defined in Clause 4(c) of the CCISS, 2007 as under:- ‘Existing industrial units’ means an industrial unit for the setting up of which effective steps were taken prior to 01-04-2007. 5. The definition of ‘existing industrial unit’ was amended vide Notification No. 10(3)/2007-DB-ii/ner DATED 12TH September, 2007. As per amended definition ‘Existing industrial unit’ means an industrial unit which commenced commercial production before 01-04-2007. 6. Since only the ‘existing units’ undergoing substantial expansion are entitled to Capital Investment Subsidy, therefore, the units which commenced commercial production before 01-04-2007 only are entitled to Capital Investment Subsidy on the additional investment made by them. 7. In the instant case the applicant unit commenced its commercial production on 01-07-2007 i.e. after 01-04-2007. Therefore, the Unit was not an ‘existing unit’ as per definition under CCISS, 2007. 8. 7. In the instant case the applicant unit commenced its commercial production on 01-07-2007 i.e. after 01-04-2007. Therefore, the Unit was not an ‘existing unit’ as per definition under CCISS, 2007. 8. The unit prepared a Techno-Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR) in May, 2009 for taking up an expansion project and proceeded for expansion with additional investment in the year 2009 and 2010. After expansion, the unit started its commercial production on 25-08-2010 and submitted its claim on 14-03-2011 for Capital Investment Subsidy as an expansion project of an existing industrial unit. 9. The office of District Industries & Commerce Centre, Kamrup(M) and the Commissionerate of Industries & Commerce took up processing of the claim. The Member Secretary informed that on perusal of the record, it appears that the question of admissibility of the claim was not examined in detail. 10. As per instructions of Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) of Govt. of India, the claim of subsidy of more than Rs. 1.5 Cores, is required to be examined by a Technical team consisting of an expert appointed by DIPP, Govt. of India also. Accordingly, the matter was referred to DIPP, Govt. of India. The DIPP, in turn, appointed a Senior Development Officer of DIPP as an expert. The Technical team conducted its field visit on 12-07-2014 but did not submit its report to the State Govt. till date. As a result, the matter could not be placed before the State Level Committee for its consideration. However, the Commissioner, Industries & Commerce, Govt. of Assam reminded the expert through mail on 01-11-2014, 03-11-2014 and 26-12-2014 requesting him to submit his report. 11. In June, 2015, the Unit filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. Vide its order dated 18-09-2015 in the said Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Department of Industries & Commerce to convene a meeting of the State Level Committee within a period of fourteen days and thereafter take a decision on the claim of the applicants/writ petitioners on the basis of its own merit. 12. In pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, this meeting of SLC has been convened. 13. Though the report of Field Visit Team has not yet been received despite a number of reminders yet SLC decided to consider the matter on its merit. 12. In pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, this meeting of SLC has been convened. 13. Though the report of Field Visit Team has not yet been received despite a number of reminders yet SLC decided to consider the matter on its merit. Accordingly, first of all SLC decided to examine admissibility of the claim. 14. The SLC examined various documents on record and observed that in the instant matter, the applicant unit has claimed subsidy as an existing unit undergoing expansion. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the unit came up as a new unit under CCISS, 2007 and commenced production on 01-07-2007 i.e. after 01-04-2007. Since the unit did not commence its production before 01-04-2007 as a new unit, the unit is not an existing unit as per definition of the existing unit laid down by notification dated 12-09-2007. Hence the unit is not entitled to incentive of Capital Investment Subsidy on additional investment. 15. The Committee was further apprised that vide notification dated 06-01-2011 the DIPP made a special provision for grant of a limited amount of Capital Investment Subsidy in case of MSME units undergoing expansion with effect from 06-01-2011. Since the claimant unit in the instant case undertook expansion before 06-01-2011, it is not even entitled to the limited amount of Capital Investment Subsidy vide notification dated 06-01-2011. 16. Since this meeting was fixed on a short notice to comply with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, representative of DIPP could not attend the meeting. However, vide their letter No. 17(14)/2015-DBA-II/NER dated 5th October, 2015, the DIPP, Govt. of India has advised Govt. of Assam to hold SLC meeting to consider the instant case in compliance of the order of the High Court. Further, during the meeting itself, Shri. Arun Kumar, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, DIPP who has been the representative in many earlier meetings was consulted over telephone. Shri. Arun Kumar was also of the view that the claim is not admissible as per provision of the Policy and subsequent notifications in this regard. 17. In view of the above, the SLC decided unanimously that the instant claim of the applicant/writ petitioners i.e. M/s. Bhabani Print & Publications is not admissible for Capital Investment Subsidy on additional investment Subsidy on additional investment under CCISS, 2007 and NEIIPP, 2007.” 17. 17. In view of the above, the SLC decided unanimously that the instant claim of the applicant/writ petitioners i.e. M/s. Bhabani Print & Publications is not admissible for Capital Investment Subsidy on additional investment Subsidy on additional investment under CCISS, 2007 and NEIIPP, 2007.” 17. In view of the observations made in the minutes dated 05.10.2015, the first question that would arise for consideration is whether the unit of the writ petitioners, which had commenced production on 01.07.2007, is an “existing unit” or a “new unit” within the meaning of clause 4 of the notification dated 27.07.2007 18. It has been categorically stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No 1 had initiated steps for setting up its printing press with an investment of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- in the year 2006 and the trade incense for setting up the unit was also obtained on 16.06.2006 The IEM was issued to the petitioner No. 1 by the Ministry of Industries, Government of India on 19.07.2006 Eventually, the commercial production in the said unit had commenced on 01.07.2007 The aforesaid statements have not been denied or disputed by the respondents. 19. As per Clause 4(c) of the notification dated 27.07.2007 an “existing industrial units” means an industrial unit for the setting up of which, effective steps were taken prior to 01-04-2007. Clause 4(e) of the notification dated 27.07.2007 defines the expression “effective steps”. Commencement of commercial production before 01.04.2007 is not a criterion laid down under clause 4(c) for determining as to whether the unit is an existing unit or not. Therefore, what would be significant to note here-in is that it is not the date of commencement of production but the initiation of effective step for setting up the unit prior to 01.04.2007 that alone would be relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the unit is an “existing unit” or a “new unit”. 20. Therefore, what would be significant to note here-in is that it is not the date of commencement of production but the initiation of effective step for setting up the unit prior to 01.04.2007 that alone would be relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the unit is an “existing unit” or a “new unit”. 20. In the present case, a bare reading of the minutes dated 05.10.2015 of the SLC goes to show that the Committee had proceeded on the basis that the unit of the petitioner No. 1, which had commenced production with effect from 01.07.2007, was a new unit within the meaning of clause 4 of the notification dated 27.07.2007 merely because the production had commenced after 01.04.2007 However, as noted above, what was relevant for the purposing of arriving at a correct decision on the issue was whether “effective steps” within the meaning of clause 4(e) were initiated by the Petitioner No. 1 prior to 01.04.2007 for setting up its unit, which exercise has evidently not been carried out by the SLC while arriving at the impugned decision. 21. Setting up a printing press of this size by investing a sum of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- would, without any doubt, consume some amount of time and having regard to the pleadings of the parties, it prima facie appears that one or more of the “effective steps” mentioned in clause 4(e) of the notification dated 27.07.2007 must have been initiated by the petitioner No. 1 prior to 01.04.2007 so as to commence commercial production on 01.07.2007. If that be so, the unit would automatically qualify as an “existing unit” within the meaning of clause 4(c). But in this case, there has been no proper determination of the said question by the SLC. The materials available on record are also insufficient for this court to record a conclusive finding of fact on the above aspect of the matter. Since, it is not in dispute that an “existing unit” would be entitled to CCIS for additional investment towards expansion of the unit, a correct determination of the fact as to whether the unit of the petitioner was an “existing unit” or a “new unit” would be sine qua non in this case. 22. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves mention here-in. 22. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves mention here-in. By interpreting clause 3 of the notification dated 27.07.2007 read with Notification dated 06.01.2011 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, the SLC took the view that the new unit of the petitioner No. 1 which had commenced production with effect from 25.08.2010 would not be entitled to even the limited amount of CCIS extended to MSME by the notification dated 06.01.2011 By issuing the notification dated 06.01.2011, paragraph 5 of the Notification dated 27.07.2007 was amended by inserting clause 3 therein. Clause 3 of the Notification dated 06.01.2011 would be relevant for the purpose of this case and is therefore, quoted herein below:- “3. In para 5, after the sentence ending with the words “or additional investment in Plant and Machinery”, the following shall be inserted, namely:- “For the industrial units in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises sector, subsidy will be available also on additional investment in plant and machinery in respect of the first and every subsequent substantial expansion and on commencing commercial production or becoming operational/functional thereafter, as the case may be, on or after 6th January, 2011, subject to a ceiling of Rs. 3.00 crore and Rs. 1.50 crore for manufacturing and services sector respectively.” 23. Interestingly, the SLC has relied upon this notification to conclude that the unit of the petitioner No. 1 would not be entitled to even the limited amount of capital investment subsidy since the unit undertook expansion before 06.01.2011 The aforesaid view of the SLC, in the opinion of this court, is clearly erroneous. Interestingly, the SLC has relied upon this notification to conclude that the unit of the petitioner No. 1 would not be entitled to even the limited amount of capital investment subsidy since the unit undertook expansion before 06.01.2011 The aforesaid view of the SLC, in the opinion of this court, is clearly erroneous. Firstly, there is nothing in the notification dated 27.07.2007 that expressly debars CCIS in case of additional investments made towards plants and machinery for expansion of a “new unit” and the said position stand established from a conjoint reading of clause 5 of the notification dated 27.07.2007 with clause 3 of the notification dated 06.01.2011 What the notification dated 06.01.2011 seeks to achieve is to impose a ceiling on the amount of CCIS that would be admissible in case of MSME towards additional investment made in plants and machinery in respect of the first and every subsequent substantial expansion for those units commencing commercial production or becoming operational/functional after 6th January, 2011.The notification dated 06.01.2011 would obviously have prospective effect and since the commercial production in the unit of the petitioner no 1 had commenced well before 06.01.2011, the notification dated 06.01.2011 cannot be applied with retrospective effect so as to negate the claim of the writ petitioners. In other words, the claim for CCIS made by the writ petitioners will have to be determined with reference to the notification dated 27.07.2007, which was holding the field at the relevant point of time and the fact remains that the said notification does not contain any clause which restricts the CCIS confining the same to only the “existing units” in case of subsequent expansion carried out therein. 24. As noted above, it appears that the Union Minister in-charge of the Department of Commerce and Industry had made a statement on the floor of the Parliament clarifying the benefits available under the NEIIPP 2007. The statement of the Departmental Minister has been brought on record by the writ petitioners by filing an additional affidavit. The relevant statements are quoted herein below:- “ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) & (b) OF RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 665 FOR ANSWER ON 2.3.2016 I. North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007. The statement of the Departmental Minister has been brought on record by the writ petitioners by filing an additional affidavit. The relevant statements are quoted herein below:- “ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) & (b) OF RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 665 FOR ANSWER ON 2.3.2016 I. North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007. 1.1 With a view to give a further boost to industrialisation in the North Eastern Region, the erstwhile North East Industrial Policy (NEIP), 1997 was revised and a new policy, namely, North East Industrial & Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007, was notified w.e.f 1.4.2007 which will remain in force up to 31.03.2017 Benefits under NEIIPP, 2007 have also been extended, for the first time, to the select Service Sector units, Bio-technology units and Power Generating units (up to 10 MW), besides industries in the manufacturing Sector. This policy replaces the erstwhile NEIP, 1997. 1.2 NEIIPP, 2007 is applicable to all industrial units (barring the units producing tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes, pan masala and plastic carry bags of less than 20 microns, refineries and units engaged in peripheral activities like preservation during storage, cleaning operations, packing, re-packing, labelling or re-labelling, sorting, alteration of retail sale price etc.). 1.3 NEIIPP, 2007 covers the entire North East Region comprising States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim. 1.4 Benefits available under the policy are: Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007:- The Scheme provides for subsidy @ 30% of the investment in plant and machinery or additional investment in Plant and Machinery by way of substantial expansion to all new units as well as existing units which go in for substantial expansion. Central Interest Subsidy Scheme:- The Scheme provides for interest subsidy @ 3% on the working capital loan availed by an eligible unit from scheduled banks or Central/State financial institutions for a maximum period of 10 years from the date of commencement of production. Central Comprehensive Insurance Scheme:- The Scheme provides for reimbursement of 100% insurance premium for a maximum period of 10 years from the date of commencement of production. 1.5 North Eastern Development Finance Corporation (NEDFC), Guwahati is the nodal agency for disbursal of subsidies under various subsidy schemes of NEIIPP, 2007. 1.6 Under NEIIPP, 2007, since inception Rs. 971.04 crores have been released to the States of NER (upto 25.02.2016) out of which an amount of Rs. 1.5 North Eastern Development Finance Corporation (NEDFC), Guwahati is the nodal agency for disbursal of subsidies under various subsidy schemes of NEIIPP, 2007. 1.6 Under NEIIPP, 2007, since inception Rs. 971.04 crores have been released to the States of NER (upto 25.02.2016) out of which an amount of Rs. 149.99 crores during 2013-14 and Rs. 221.90 crores during 2014-15 have been released. 1.7 Suspension of fresh registration under NEIIPP: The anticipated liabilities under the scheme in the current FY 2015-16 are to be around Rs. 720.10 crore. DIPP has incurred liabilities far in excess of the Plan outlay. In view of the resource crunch and to curtail further liabilities under the scheme, fresh registrations under NEIIPP have been suspended w.e.f 1.12.2014 It has, however, been clarified that the scheme has neither been withdrawn nor discontinued.” 25. A plain reading of the aforesaid statement, more particularly the reply in paragraph 1.4, amply clarifies the stand of the Government of India on the point of controversy raised in this petition. From the aforesaid statement, it is apparent that the benefit of the CCIS to the extent of 30% of the capital investment would be available to even the new industrial units on account of additional investment made in the plants and machinery towards expansion of the unit. It is, however, surprising to note here-in that notwithstanding the clear language of the Policy document and the categorical stand taken by the Departmental Minister on the Floor of the Rajya Sabha clarifying the matter, the Departmental Secretary has chosen to file an affidavit in this proceeding taking a completely contrary stand thereby projecting that only the “existing unit” undergoing substantial expansion would be entitled to capital investment subsidy. Having regard to the materials available on record, the aforesaid stand of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appears to be wholly un-tenable on the face of the record. 26. It is also to be noted here-in that in the proceedings of the meeting held on 05.10.2015 the SLC has mentioned in paragraph no. 13 that the report of the “Field Visit Team” was not produced before it despite a number of reminders issued on that behalf. But I find from the record that the said report was prepared on 12.07.2014 and according to the report, the petitioners have been found to be eligible to receive an amount of Rs. 2,31,394,100/- as subsidy. 13 that the report of the “Field Visit Team” was not produced before it despite a number of reminders issued on that behalf. But I find from the record that the said report was prepared on 12.07.2014 and according to the report, the petitioners have been found to be eligible to receive an amount of Rs. 2,31,394,100/- as subsidy. There is no explanation from the respondents as to why the report dated 12.07.2014 of the “Field Visit Team” was not placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 05.10.2010 27. A careful examination of the notifications dated 27.07.2007 and 06.01.2011as well as the statement made by the Departmental Minister on the floor of the Parliament leaves no manner of doubt that CCIS would be admissible for additional investments made in plants and machinery in case of both “existing unit” as well as “new unit”. Therefore, viewed from that angle also, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the minute dated 05.10.2015 28. The NEIIPP, 2007, it must be remembered, holds out a promise on behalf of the Government, to the entrepreneurs making investments towards setting up of industrial units or undergoing expansion of existing units located within the North Eastern Region. The Scheme of 2007 has been farmed so as to implement the new Industrial Policy by making available the CCIS to the eligible units. Therefore, any unit which fulfils the criteria notified under the NEIIPP, 2007 as well as the notification dated 27.07.2007 cannot be denied of the benefits announced under the policy. In this case, since the writ petitioners have acted on the promise held out under the NEIIP 2007 and have changed their position, denial of the benefits under the industrial policy would be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The amount of subsidy payable to the petitioners would, however, be subject to the ceiling mentioned in the relevant notification and the further condition that such investment is made during the period envisaged under the NEIIPP 2007 and also by following the due procedure laid down in the notification dated 27.07.2007 29. The amount of subsidy payable to the petitioners would, however, be subject to the ceiling mentioned in the relevant notification and the further condition that such investment is made during the period envisaged under the NEIIPP 2007 and also by following the due procedure laid down in the notification dated 27.07.2007 29. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the un-hesitant opinion that the SLC was not correct in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners on the grounds indicated in the impugned minutes of meeting dated 05.10.2007 Therefore, the impugned decision of the SLC is held to be unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back for a fresh decision by the SLC on the CCIS claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made herein above. 30. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Commerce and Industries Department, shall take necessary steps for placing the matter before the SLC as expeditiously as possible. 31. A decision in terms of the order of this court shall be taken by the respondents within a period 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order with due intimation to the writ petitioners. 32. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 33. Parties to bear their own cost.