Page No.# 1/24 GAHC010013952020 2025:GAU-AS:9806 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/463/2020 ISHWAR FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. TINGRAI HOOGRIJAN ROAD, PATIA PATHAR GAON, P.O- TINSUKIA- 786125, ASSAM, REP. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI SM AGARWAL, R/O- SIDING BAZAR, TINSUKIA- 786125, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DEPTT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 11 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM DEPTT OF INDUSTRIES GOVT OF ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI- 21 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE P.O- BORGURI TINSUKIA- 786125 ASSAM Page No.# 2/24 5:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD NEDFI HOUSE DISPUR GS ROAD GUWAHATI- 0 For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. A. Todi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, Dy. SGI : Mr. A. Kalita, Standing Counsel : Mr. G. Das, Advocate Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025, 22.07.2025 Date ofJudgment : 22.07.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Dr. A. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. A. Kalita, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. G. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5. 2. The Petitioner herein has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging the communication dated 20.11.2009 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) whereby compliance were sought for in the form of Checklists for scrutiny of all claims arising from transportation of raw materials and finished products prior or post 10.09.2009. Page No.# 3/24 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the Checklist-A which is for scrutiny of the claims pertaining to transport subsidy prior to 10.09.2009, there is a requirement being inserted that the person claiming subsidy has to produce the bank statement for payment made to transporter during the period (payment only by cheque). It is the specific case of the Petitioner that in respect to the claims for the period prior to 10.09.2009, the Petitioner’s claim cannot be rejected on the ground of the communication dated 20.11.2009 and more particularly Checklist-A. 4. In order to appreciate the grievances of the Petitioner, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings. 5. On 23.07.1971, the Government of India had notified a scheme for grant of subsidy on transportation of raw materials and finished goods to and from certain selected areas with a view to promote growth of industries. The Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “Transport Subsidy Scheme”), has been amended from time to time. 6. A perusal of the writ petition does not reflect as to what business, the Petitioner is carrying out. Be that as it may, the Petitioner submitted claims in terms with the said Transport Subsidy Scheme for various periods. The details of the period of claim and the amounts so claimed by the Petitioner are reproduced herein under: Page No.# 4/24 Sl. No. Period of Claim Amount Approved 1 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2006 Rs.2,98,819.00 2 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2007 Rs.10,16,869.00 3 01.04.2007 to 30.06.2007 Rs.14,69,178.00 4 01.07.2007 to 30.09.2007 Rs.13,34,455.00 5 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 Rs.24,52,325.00 6 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2008 Rs.34,63,441.00 7. It is the further case of the Petitioner that although the Petitioner submitted those claims, the Petitioner was not paid any amount. This resulted in the Petitioner filing a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.5742/2011. 8. It is very pertinent at this stage to mention that in the said proceedings i.e. WP(C) No.5742/2011, the Respondent No.4 herein had filed its affidavit- in-opposition on 12.03.2012. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, various aspects were mentioned on the merits of the said proceedings. Be that as it may, it is very relevant to mention that to the said affidavit-in-opposition, the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 was enclosed as Annexure-C. The record reveals that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent authorities have disbursed the claims so made as referred to herein above except those claims which were paid by cash. It is pertinent herein to mention that though the State Level Committee for scrutiny and verification of the claims have recommended the claims so made by the Page No.# 5/24 Petitioner including the claims based upon cash payments, but the Respondent No.1 rejected the claims of the Petitioner insofar as those payments made by way of cash. 9. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present proceedings as would appear from Annexure-4 to the present writ petition is that the Petitioner received various amounts on 05.02.2015 and while receiving the said amounts, the Petitioner was denied the claims insofar as claims based upon cash payments. 10. The record further reveals that the writ petition being WP(C) No.5742/2011 was subsequently disposed of vide the judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 and there was a direction issued to the Respondent No.1 herein to cause an enquiry and verify as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to the balance amount as claimed in the statement enclosed to the affidavit dated 03.05.2017. An order thereupon was passed on 01.08.2018 whereby, it was observed that the Petitioner was duly paid what the Petitioner was entitled to save and except the claims so made on the basis of cash payment. 11. The records reveals that pursuant to the order passed on 01.08.2018, the present writ petition was filed on 21.01.2020 challenging the order dated 01.08.2018 as well as the communication dated 20.11.2009 and Checklist-A. The Petitioner further has sought for a direction upon the respondent authorities to disburse the transport subsidy recommended by the State Level Committee amounting of Rs.2,46,149/- on the basis of the details Page No.# 6/24 which have been mentioned at paragraph No.12 of the writ petition. 12. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 27.01.2020 issued notice. The materials on record show that the Respondent No.1 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 18.02.2021 wherein there were preliminary submissions made as to the reasons why the Checklists were introduced vide the communication dated 20.11.2009. It was mentioned in the said affidavit- in-opposition that as per Clause 6(xiii) of the notification dated 19.07.1978 which was issued in respect to the Transport Subsidy Scheme, the Directorate of Industries in the States/Union Territories concerned were required to carry out periodical checks to ensure that the raw materials and finished goods in respect of which transport subsidy were disbursed were actually used for the purpose by a system of scrutinizing of consumption of raw materials and the output of finished products. It was also mentioned that in terms with Clause 6(xiv)of the said notification dated 19.07.1978, the Directorate of Industries of the States/Union Territories concerned were further required to draw up a procedure and arrangement for scrutinizing the claims for transport subsidy. It was stated that the Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG) which conducted Performance Audit of Transport Subsidy Scheme, in its report submitted in November, 2009 pointed out several instances of irregularities. In the said report, it was noticed during a review exercise by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) in the year 2009, that all States/Union Territories were not following a uniform system for examination/scrutiny of the claim documents and it was therefore felt that a uniform checklist for scrutiny of claims under the Transport Subsidy Scheme may be applied across the board. Page No.# 7/24 13. At paragraph No.6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that there was a conscious decision taken at that time to disallow payments made to transporters in cash so as to eliminate the possibility of allowing doubtful/unscrupulous claims. The Integrated Finance Wing and the Internal Audit Wing who were also consulted in the matter at that time opined that the cash payment of transport charges is not permissible under “Receipt and Payment ”Rules and that the proposal for such relaxation is not only in violation of the said Rules but will invite similar requests from other State Governments. It was accordingly decided that the Checklists introduced vide communication dated 20.11.2009 may not be relaxed insofar as mode of payment other than cheque is concerned. 14. It was further mentioned that under the Transfer Subsidy Scheme for the period from 01.01.2006 to 15.06.2009, the claims made by the Petitioner were scrutinized as per 44 point Checklist by independent audit agency and the audit team in its report had pointed out that some of the payments made to the transporters were in cash and hence not admissible. It was stated that it is under such context, the department deducted the amount in respect of such payment made to the transporters in cash and released the balance subsidy in respect of the said claims in view of the fact that the claims did not comply with the requirement of the Checklist-A introduced vide the communication dated 20.11.2009. 15. The record further reveals that the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein the stand so taken was that the State Level Committee is only a recommending authority and not the Page No.# 8/24 final authority to decide the issues under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971. The decision of the DPIIT was final and in the instant case, the DPIIT disallowed those payments made by the Petitioner's unit in cash as per the extant policy. It was further mentioned that the Checklists introduced by the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 was introduced retrospectively by the Respondent No.1 after taking into account the variety of consideration including various instances of irregularities brought to the notice of the Respondent No.1. 16. The Respondent No.5 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was mentioned that the said Respondent is only the disbursing authority and acts upon the decision(s) so made by the DPIIT. The stand so taken by the Respondent No.5 was that there were certain objections raised in the XIIth pre-audit team of the Respondent No.1 and some claims were not as per the Checklist-A for the transport subsidy claim. In addition to that, the Respondent No.5 also raised the issue of res-judicata in view of the order dated 21.07.2017 passed in WP(C) No.5742/2011. 17. It is further seen that against these affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Respondents, no re-joinder(s) was/were filed by the Petitioner. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 18. Dr. A. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the act on the part of the Respondent No.1 to retrospectively debar the claims based upon cash payment had effected the vested rights of Page No.# 9/24 the Petitioner inasmuch as prior to 10.11.2009, there was no requirement that the payment to be made to the transporter should be by way of cheque or bank transfer. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner has not assailed the communication dated 20.11.2009 if applied prospectively but the said communication and more particularly the Checklist-A cannot be applied retrospectively. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a vested right conferred on the basis of the Transport Subsidy Scheme for reimbursement of the transportation costs was taken away retrospectively which violates the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The learned counsel further referred to a judgment on the same issue rendered by the learned Meghalaya High Court in the case of Meghalaya Feed Products Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2019) 2 NEJ 641 (Meg). 19. Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that payments made in cash if accepted, it would lead to fraudulent claims which cannot be verified. He therefore referring to the reasons why communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklists introduced submitted that the requirements have been set out to confer the benefits upon those who are actually entitled to and reduce fraudulent/bogus claims. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the principles of promissory estoppels are not attracted inasmuch as what the authorities have done is regulating the subsidy claims in a more fair and transparent manner so that the entitled are not deprived and fraud/bogus claims can be removed from consideration. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. VVF Ltd. and Another reported in (2020) 20 SCC 57. Page No.# 10/24 20. Mr. A. Kalita, the learned Standing counsel for the State Respondents submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim any rights on the basis of the State Level Committee’s recommendation inasmuch as the recommendation is subject to the decision of the DPIIT who is the final Authority. 21. Mr. G. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NEDFI submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Petitioner was well aware of the communication dated 20.11.2009 in the year 2012 and the present writ petition was filed after 8 years that too without any explanation. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION: 22. In the backdrop of the above, the following points for consideration arise before this Court: (i) Whether the communication dated 20.11.2009 prescribing a Checklist for the claims prior to 10.09.2009 violates the principles of promissory estoppel inasmuch as claims made on the basis of payment by cash were not entitled for transport subsidy claims? (ii) If yes, what relief(s) the Petitioner is entitled to? ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 23. The materials on record would show that the Government of India vide the notification dated 23.07.1971 had introduced a Scheme for grant of Page No.# 11/24 subsidy on transport of raw materials and finished goods to and from selected areas with a view to promote growth of industries. This Transport Subsidy Scheme which was made in the year 1971 have been extended from time to time as would be apparent from the records. 24. It is pertinent at this stage to state that the Government of India, Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had issued an Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1997 whereby the Transport Subsidy Scheme was further extended insofar as the North Eastern States were concerned, for another period of seven years i.e. up to 31.03.2007 on the same terms and conditions as applicable. This was followed by another Notification issued by the Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion dated 29.01.1998 whereby the Transport Subsidy Scheme was further extended till 31.03.2007 for the North Eastern States. 25. The record further reveals that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2007 whereby fiscal incentives and other concessions for the North Eastern Region was announced effective from 01.04.2007. Amongst the various incentives, it promised to continue the incentive pertaining to Transport Subsidy Scheme which was earlier operational till 31.03.2007. The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2007 insofar as Transport Subsidy Scheme is reproduced herein under: “(xiv) Transport Subsidy Scheme: Page No.# 12/24 The Transport Subsidy Scheme would continue beyond 31.3.2007, on the same terms and conditions. However, an early evaluation of the scheme will be carried out with a view to introducing necessary safeguards to prevent possible leakages and misuse.” 26. From a perusal of the above, it would be seen that on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2007, the Transport Subsidy Scheme was to continue beyond 31.03.2007. The latter portion of the above quoted Clause is of relevance as it stipulates that an early evaluation of the Transport Subsidy Scheme would be carried out with a view to introducing necessary safeguards to prevent possible leakages and misuses. 27. The impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 appears to be a fall out of the constant endeavor of the Respondent Authorities to take appropriate steps in order to prevent misuse and leakages in the disbursement of subsidy as would be apparent from the analysis hereinafter. 28. A perusal of the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 would show that certain checks and balances were introduced for scrutiny of the transport subsidy scheme. The Checklist A was introduced containing 44 points for scrutiny insofar as claims related to transportation of raw materials and finished goods prior to 10.09.2009. Checklist-B contained 49 points for scrutiny of claims arising for transportation of raw materials and finished products on or after 10.09.2009. The present proceedings relate to the period prior to 10.09.2009 and therefore in terms with the Checklist-A, the Transport Subsidy Claims were to Page No.# 13/24 be examined/pre-audited by the authority concerned as provided in Checklist-A which included amongst others, the bank statement for payment made to transporters during the period (payment only by Cheque). 29. In the backdrop of the above, it is apposite to take note of the case of the Petitioner. Dr. A. Todi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that by operation of Checklist-A, certain cash payments which have been made by the Petitioner prior to the checklist being introduced have been rejected insofar as cash payments made to the transporters and this was not envisaged as per the Transport Subsidy Scheme prior to 10.11.2009. 30. Per Contra from the submissions so made by the learned Deputy Solicitor General, India as well as from the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1, the reasons why a necessity for issuance of the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklists A & B were mentioned. A perusal of the paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.1 shows that in terms with Clause 6(xiii) of the Notification dated 19.07.1978, the Directorate of Industries of State/Union Territories were required to carry out periodical checks to ensure that raw materials and finished products in respect to which transport subsidy were given were actually used for the purpose by a system of scrutinizing of consumption of raw materials and output of finished products. 31. Further to that, in terms with Clause 6(xiv) of the Notification dated 19.07.1978, the Directorate of Industries of the States/Union Territories concerned were required to draw a procedure and arrangement for Page No.# 14/24 scrutinizing the claims for transport subsidy. Clause 6(xiii) and Clause 6(xiv) being relevant are reproduced herein under: “6.(xiii) In order to check any misuse of transport subsidy Directorates of Industries in the State/Union Territories will carry out periodical checks to ensure that the raw materials and the finished goods in respect of which transport subsidy has been given were actually used for the purpose by a system of scrutinizing of consumption of the raw materials and the output of the finished goods. 6.(xiv) Directorate of Industries of the State and Union Territories concerned will draw up procedures and arrangements not only for scrutinizing the claims for transport subsidy but also arrange for prompt payment of the claims. The number of transport subsidy claims that may be preferred by an industrial unit should not ordinarily exceed one in a quarter. However, the Director of Industries may at his discretion entertain more number of claims in a financial year, if the financial position of the industrial unit so warrants.” 32. In addition to that, this Court also finds it pertinent to take note of Clause 6(xvi) of the Notification dated 19.07.1978 which is to the effect that the Ministry of Industrial Development (now Department of Industrial Policy and Proportion) would continuously review the arrangement made by the Directorate of Industries of the concerned States and Union Territories and suggest modifications in the procedure for scrutinizing the claim, payment of transport subsidy etc. Clause 6(xvi) being relevant is reproduced herein under: “(xvi) The Ministry of Industrial Development (now Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) will continuously review the arrangement made by the Directorate of Industries of the concerned States and Union Territories and Page No.# 15/24 suggest modifications in the procedure for scrutinizing the claim, payment of transport subsidy etc.” 33. From the above quoted Clauses of the Notification dated 19.07.1978, it would transpire that the Respondent Authorities were required to be lay down procedures for scrutinizing the claims for transport subsidy so that the person/industry who is/are actually entitled to receive the transport subsidy duly receives the same and the fraudulent, bogus and fictitious claims are rejected. It may not be out of place herein to observe that with changing times, the requirement for altering/modifying/varying the method of scrutiny/pre- audit have to be adopted, else, it may result in disastrous consequences. This Court finds it pertinent to observe at this stage that when the object behind the Transport Subsidy Scheme is seen to be frustrated on account of certain unscrupulous persons, the Authorities dealing with the subsidy claims would be required to adopt measures so that the object is not allowed to be thwarted. As said above, it would otherwise be ruinous to the object sought to be achieved. Let’s take an example. The Transport Subsidy Scheme has been in existence since 1971. In the year 1994, service tax was introduced by the Finance Act, 1994. A perusal of the Transport Subsidy Scheme would show that subsidy is being granted towards transportation of raw materials and finished products from selected areas. In terms with the Finance Act, 1994, service tax is payable on the reverse charge on service of transportation. That means that the payment of Service tax have to be made by the Service Page No.# 16/24 Receiver. Can it be said that the Authorities concerned with the scrutiny of Transport Subsidy claims cannot insist on production of service tax payment for the purpose of scrutiny/pre-audit of the transport subsidy claims. The answer has to be in the negative. In other words, the authorities concerned have to keep up with the changing times and further adopt mechanism so that the Object behind the Scheme is not frustrated. 34. It therefore appears that nothing new was introduced by the impugned notification dated 20.11.2009. Rather what was done by the impugned communication and the Checklists introduced was always in the contemplation in terms of the Transport Subsidy Scheme. At this stage, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2007 issued by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion of the Government of India and more particularly Clause (xiv) as quoted herein above. As stated above, the said Clause mandated that an early evaluation of the said Transport Subsidy Scheme would be carried out with a view to introducing necessary safeguards to prevent possible leakage and misuse. The resultant consequence is Transport Subsidy Scheme was substituted by the Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013. 35. Now coming back to the facts involved, it would be seen that the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) conducted Performance Audit of Transport Subsidy Scheme and submitted a report in November, 2009 pointing out several irregularities. It was also noticed from the report submitted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion that all the States/Union Territories were not following a uniform system for Page No.# 17/24 examination/scrutiny of the claim documents and it was therefore felt necessary that there should be a uniform checklist for scrutiny of claims under the Transport Subsidy Scheme which should be applied across the board. It is under such circumstances, on 20.11.2009, the impugned communication was issued stipulating that all claims arising from transportation of raw materials and finished goods products prior to 10.09.2009 would be examined/pre-audited as per the Checklist-A of 44 points and all claims for scrutiny of claims arising from transportation of raw materials and finished products on or after the 10.09.2009 shall be scrutinized in terms of Checklist-B of 49 points. 36. This Court further finds it relevant that at Serial No.35 of Checklist-A, it is stipulated that the Bank Statement has to be provided for payment made to transporters during the period meaning thereby that in order to claim subsidy, the payment(s) to the transporter(s) has/have to be made by cheque only. The requirement to show that payments were to be made by cheque only as was the prevalent system then (now a day, it is predominately bank transfer through IMPS, RTGS, NEFT etc.) is for the simple reason that it helps, in scrutinizing the claims with certainty that the payment(s) were duly made to transporters for bringing the raw materials and sending the finished products from the industry concerned. It is well settled that subsidies/exemption granted are for the benefit of the industry and such benefits are at the costs of the Public Exchequer. Under such circumstances, the Authorities involved in scrutiny of the claims have the right to scrupulously ascertain that the subsidy/exemption is/are disbursed to the entitled only. Page No.# 18/24 In the opinion of this Court, the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklists, so introduced, are merely regulatory measures taken in terms with the Transport Subsidy Scheme. These regulatory measures are clarificatory in nature as it was always within the realm of the Transport Subsidy Scheme that benefits of the Scheme would only flow to the entitled and the fictitious/fraudulent/ bogus claims would be rejected. Apart from that, it is also the opinion of this Court that as by way of the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklists so introduced, the Authorities have resorted to steps to confer benefits, so that rightful gets the benefits and the wrong are eliminated, which is in tune with the Object behind the Transport Subsidy Scheme, the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 is in larger public interest. 37. At this stage, this Court finds it apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of VVF Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the respective notifications of the industrial policies observed that the same have been issued to prevent the misuse of exemption granted by the Government which was meant to be available only for genuine manufacturers. Referring to the various instances of misuse of exemption, it was observed by the Supreme Court that if the misuse of the exemptions so granted can be stopped by keeping in mind the laudable object of having genuine industrialization in the backward area or areas, such notifications/industrial policies would be in public interest. It was further observed that the notifications issued which was the subject matter before the Supreme Court were only clarificatory in nature and cannot be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Paragraph Nos. 24.2, 24.3, 24.4 and Page No.# 19/24 25 being relevant and as such the same are reproduced herein under: “24.2. Therefore, the Government came out with the impugned notifications/industrial policies that the refund of excise duty shall be provided on actual and calculated on the basis of actual value addition. On a fair reading of the earlier notifications/industrial policies, it is clear that the object of granting the refund was to refund the excise duty paid on genuine manufacturing activities. The intention would not have been that irrespective of actual manufacturing/manufacturing activities and even if the goods are not actually manufactured, but are manufactured on paper, there shall be refund of excise duty which are manufactured on paper. Therefore, it can be said that the object of the subsequent notifications/industrial policies was the prevention of tax evasion. It can be said that by the subsequent notifications/industrial policies, they only rationalise the quantum of exemption and proposing rate of refund on the total duty payable on the genuine manufactured goods. At the time when the earlier notifications were issued, the Government did not visualise that such a modus operandi would be followed by the unscrupulous manufacturers who indulge in different types of tax evasion tactics. It is only by experience and on analysis of cases detected by the Excise Department that the Government came to know about such tax evasion tactics being followed by the unscrupulous manufacturers which prompted the Government to come out with the subsequent notifications which, as observed hereinabove, was to clarify the refund mechanism so as to provide that excise duty refund would be allowed only to the extent of duty payable on actual value addition made by the manufacturer undertaking manufacturing activities in the areas concerned. The entire genesis of the policy manifesting the intention of the Government to grant excise duty exemption/refund of excise duty paid was to provide such exemption only to actual value addition made in the respective areas. As it was found that there was misuse of excise duty exemption it was considered expedient in the public interest and with a laudable object of having genuine industrialisation in backward areas or the areas concerned, the subsequent notifications/industrial policies have been issued by the Government. Page No.# 20/24 Therefore, the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned before the respective High Courts were in the public interest and even issued after thorough analysis of the cases of tax evasion and even after receipt of the reports. The earlier notifications were issued under Section 5-A of the Central Excise Act and even the subsequent notifications which were issued in public interest and in the interest of Revenue were also issued under Section 5-A of the Central Excise Act, which can not be said to be bad in law, arbitrary and/or hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 24.3. The purpose of the original scheme was not to give benefit of refund of the excise duty paid on the goods manufactured only on paper or in fact not manufactured at all. As the purpose of the original notifications/incentive schemes was being frustrated by such unscrupulous manufacturers who had indulged in different types of tax evasion tactics, the subsequent notifications/industrial policies have been issued allowing refund of excise duty only to the extent of duty payable on the actual value addition made by the manufacturers undertaking manufacturing activities in these areas which is absolutely in consonance with the incentive scheme and the intention of the Government to provide the excise duty exemption only in respect of genuine manufacturing activities carried out in these areas. 24.4. As observed hereinabove, the subsequent notifications/industrial policies do not take away any vested right conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies. Under the subsequent notifications/industrial policies, the persons who establish the new undertakings shall continue to get the refund of the excise duty. However, it is clarified by the subsequent notifications that the refund of the excise duty shall be on the actual excise duty paid on actual value addition made by the manufacturers undertaking manufacturing activities. Therefore, it cannot be said that subsequent notifications/industrial policies are hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The respective High Courts have committed grave error in holding that the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned before the respective Page No.# 21/24 High Courts were hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As observed and held hereinabove, the subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were impugned before the respective High Courts can be said to be clarificatory in nature and the same have been issued in larger public interest and in the interest of the Revenue, the same can be made applicable retrospectively, otherwise the object and purpose and the intention of the Government to provide excise duty exemption only in respect of genuine manufacturing activities carried out in the areas concerned shall be frustrated. As the subsequent notifications/industrial policies are “to explain” the earlier notifications/industrial policies, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. The subsequent notifications impugned before the respective High Courts as such provide the manner and method of calculating the amount of refund of excise duty paid on actual manufacturing of goods. The notifications impugned before the respective High Courts can be said to be providing mode on determination of the refund of excise duty to achieve the object and purpose of providing incentive/exemption. As observed hereinabove, they do not take away any vested right conferred under the earlier notifications. The subsequent notifications therefore are clarificatory in nature, since it declares the refund of excise duty paid genuinely and paid on actual manufacturing of goods and not on the duty paid on the goods manufactured only on paper and without undertaking any manufacturing activities of such goods. 25. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and once it is held that the subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were impugned before the respective High Courts are clarificatory in nature and are issued in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they do not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies and therefore cannot be said to be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the same is to be applied retrospectively and Page No.# 22/24 they cannot be said to be irrational and/or arbitrary.” (emphasis supplied to the underlined portion) 38. Applying the above principles, to the facts of the instant case, it would be seen that the laudable object behind the Transport Subsidy Scheme is to provide transport subsidy to those industrial units transporting raw materials and finished goods to and from certain selected areas with a view to promoting growth of industries. The Scheme further visualizes that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion as well as the Directorate of Industries of the States/Union Territories shall devolve appropriate mechanism so that there is no misuse and leakages of the subsidy which is sought to be granted to eligible industrial units. What was found out was that there were certain misuse by certain sections of the persons. Additionally, the Transport Subsidy Scheme which was applicable to various States and Union territories, there was no uniformity in the scrutinization of the claims. It was under such circumstances, the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 was issued whereby the Checklists A and B were introduced. In the opinion of this Court, as the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 is to prevent the misuse of the subsidy to be granted by the Government, the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 would be deemed to have been issued in larger public interest. This Court further is of opinion that the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 is not a new thing which was introduced out of the blue but rather is a result of the continuous endeavour and efforts of the Central Government as well as State Governments to prevent misuse of the subsidy and as such, the said communication dated 20.11.2009 is a clarificatory communication clarifying Page No.# 23/24 how the Transport Subsidy Scheme would be regulated. This Court is also of the opinion that as the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklists A & B are clarificatory in nature as well as in larger public interest, the Checklist-A introduced for scrutinizing the claims prior to 10.09.2009 was rightly made retrospective taking into account the object behind the Transport Subsidy Scheme which only aimed at providing subsidy on transportation of raw materials and finished products for industrial growth of the selected areas. This Court further observes that if the Checklist A was not introduced, the very object aforesaid would be frustrated. 39. The above analysis would show that both the Points for consideration are decided in the negative against the Petitioner. CONCLUSION 40. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed off with the following observations and directions: (A) The impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklists A & B introduced are clarificatory in nature and in larger public interest. (B) The impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklist A do not call for any interference from this Court. (C) The doctrine of promissory estoppel which was sought to be contended by the Petitioner herein to be applicable in the present case, do not apply, as the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 is in larger public interest. Page No.# 24/24 (D) The instant writ petition is dismissed. (E) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant