1991 (1) TMI 144 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a concession in the payment of excise duty up to 50% for a period of 5 years as per a Press Note issued by the Department of Industrial Development.
2. Whether the petitioner can claim the concession in excise duty from the date of commencement of production of cement by the petitioner-company.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the Union of India to refrain from collecting excise duty exceeding 50% of the normal duty under Tariff Item No. 23 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for 5 years from the start of cement production. The petitioner argued that a Press Note from 1979 indicated a concession for mini cement plants, but full excise duty was collected from them, which the petitioner deemed illegal. The petitioner relied on the doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' and a statement by the Minister for Industry in the Lok Sabha regarding the concession period. However, the Court noted that the Press Note did not specify the effective date of the concession and highlighted that excise duty liability is governed by the Act and rules. Exemption notifications were issued, but they were limited to specific periods and rates, not covering the petitioner's production start in 1985.

The Court emphasized that without an exemption notification in force at the time of production commencement, the petitioner could not claim a right to pay excise duty at a concessional rate. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument based on the Minister's statement, stating that it did not automatically create a statutory law. The Court held that exemptions under the Act could only be granted within the Act's provisions, and the exemptions granted were limited to specific periods. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could not invoke 'promissory estoppel' against the Act's specific provisions. No costs were awarded in the judgment.