9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 198/76 and subsequent withdrawal of benefits. 2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Central Government. 3. Validity of impugned Notification No. 141/78 withdrawing excise duty relief. 4. Consideration of public interest in withdrawing the benefit. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a tyre manufacturing company, relied on Notification No. 198/76 issued by the Government of India to avail of a 25% excise duty rebate on excess production. The notification aimed to provide fiscal relief to new units in the tyre industry to compete with established companies. The petitioner invested heavily based on this scheme, increasing production as per the incentive. However, the Government later issued Notification No. 141/78, withdrawing the benefit, leading to the petitioner's challenge on the grounds of estoppel. 2. The petitioner argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel should apply against the Central Government, preventing it from withdrawing the benefit promised until March 31, 1979. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner contended that the Government could be bound by its promise under certain circumstances, especially when substantial investments were made in reliance on such assurances. 3. The Court considered the legality of the impugned Notification No. 141/78, which revoked the excise duty relief granted earlier. The petitioner's reliance on the initial notification and their substantial investments following it formed the basis of their challenge. The Court analyzed the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in this context and examined whether the Government had the authority to withdraw the benefit as per the law. 4. The respondents argued that the scheme was reviewed due to anomalies in the tyre industry, leading to the withdrawal of benefits in public interest. However, the Court found the respondents' assertions vague and lacking supporting data. Relying on a previous judgment, the Court held that mere assertions of public interest or policy changes were insufficient grounds to justify the withdrawal of promised benefits. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned Notification, upholding the petitioner's claim based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the Government was bound by the promise made in the initial notification, and the withdrawal of benefits through the subsequent notification was unjustified. The judgment emphasized the importance of honoring commitments made by the Government to incentivize investments and ensure fairness in administrative actions.
|
