IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 902 of 2008 Decided on: 03.03.2010 M/s Virgo Appliances Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral): The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: a) issue a writ of certiorari or an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus quashing the communication dated 22.1.2008 (Annexure –P10); b) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus quashing Notification No. 1 of 2008 dated 18.1.2008 (Annexure-P4) in so far as it denies the benefit of exemption of excise duty to the petitioners by virtue of earlier Notification No. 50 of 2003 (Annexure-P3) with respect to the manufacture of Safety Razor Systems. c) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the petitioner company is entitled to the benefits of excise exemptions vide Notification No. 50 of 2003 (P3) and that Notification No.1 of 2008 (P4) is not applicable to the units set up before 18.1.2008; 2 d) issue a writ or mandamus or an appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to refund the entire amount of excise duty recovered by them from the petitioner company on the basis of letter dated 22.1.2008 (P10) and pass such other or further orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is informed that this Court has decided an identical case leading to judgment dated 18.12.2008 in CWP No. 589/2008 and the decision is in favour of the petitioners, which is not disputed. But we are informed that the Union of India has taken up the matter before the Supreme Court and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. Parties agree that they will also be bound by the outcome of the said matter now pending before the Supreme Court. It is also pointed out that the writ petitioner in this case has paid certain amount under protest. Since the very authority for the levy had been questioned and since that question has been answered in favour of the petitioner, needless to say that in case the SLP is dismissed, the claim for refund will be honoured by the Union of India. The writ petition stands disposed of and so as the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 03, 2010 Judge (BSS) 3