1991 (2) TMI 123 - HC - Central Excise

Modvat Credit Scheme - Constitutionality - Estoppel - Promissory estoppel - Interpretation of statute - Modvat Scheme

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Notification No. 203/87 withdrawing MODVAT Scheme for aerated waters.
2. Application of promissory estoppel.
3. Allegations of discrimination.
4. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
5. Impact of Article 19(6) on the notification.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to writ petitions challenging the validity of Notification No. 203/87 dated 9-9-1987, which excluded aerated waters from the MODVAT Scheme. The petitioners, manufacturers of aerated water, contended that the withdrawal of the scheme was arbitrary and invalid, especially after it had been extended to aerated waters earlier. The court noted that the notification was challenged on various grounds, including the doctrine of promissory estoppel and discrimination against the petitioners compared to other manufacturers.

2. The petitioners argued that the withdrawal of the MODVAT Scheme for aerated waters was in violation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However, the court referenced judgments from other courts, such as the Calcutta High Court and the Bombay High Court, which had previously considered similar issues and upheld the validity of the notification. The court found no merit in the promissory estoppel argument and dismissed it based on the precedent set by the previous judgments.

3. Allegations of discrimination were raised by the petitioners, claiming that the exclusion of aerated waters from the MODVAT Scheme created unfair treatment compared to other goods. The court did not delve into the merits of this contention, as it had already been addressed in previous judgments. Citing the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Bombay High Court, the court found no illegality in the withdrawal of the concession under the MODVAT Scheme for aerated waters.

4. The petitioners also alleged that the impugned notification violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to practice any profession, trade, or business. However, the court did not find it necessary to discuss this contention further, as it had already been addressed and rejected in previous judgments, including the decision in Black Diamond Beverages Ltd. v. Union of India.

5. Lastly, the impact of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India on the notification was considered. Article 19(6) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) in the interest of the general public. The court did not find Article 19(6) to save the impugned notification, as it had already dismissed the writ petitions based on the reasoning and conclusions drawn from the previous judgments. The court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of Notification No. 203/87 and ruled that there would be no order as to costs.