9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the period for granting excise duty rebate. 2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the government. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Period for Granting Excise Duty Rebate: The petitioners, mini-cement plants, argued that they should receive a 50% rebate in excise duty for five years from the date they commenced production. They based their argument on a press-note dated January 4, 1979, which mentioned a 50% rebate on excise duty for mini-cement plants. The petitioners contended that this rebate should be applicable for five years from their individual start dates of commercial production. However, the court found that the relevant notifications, including the press-note dated January 4, 1979, and subsequent notifications dated May 30, 1979, February 28, 1982, and March 1, 1983, clearly indicated that the rebate was to be in force for five years from the date of the notification, not from the date of each mini-cement plant's commencement of production. The court emphasized that interpreting the rebate period to start from the date of individual production would be inconsistent with the intention of the scheme, which aimed to provide a uniform incentive period. The court also noted that all subsequent notifications mentioned a standard clause stating that the rebate would be in force up to and inclusive of March 31, 1984. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to any rebate beyond this date. 2. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Against the Government: The petitioners also argued that the government should be estopped from withdrawing the rebate before the completion of five years from their respective dates of commercial production, citing the doctrine of promissory estoppel. They relied on a reply given by the Minister of Industry to a parliamentary question, which suggested that the rebate would be available for five years from the date of commencement of production. The court rejected this argument, stating that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the government to carry out a representation or promise that is contrary to law or beyond the authority of the government officials. The court cited various Supreme Court judgments to support its position that promissory estoppel cannot operate against legislative functions or statutory prohibitions. The court further explained that all the notifications issued by the Central Government were published in the Official Gazette, thereby acquiring statutory force. These notifications were legislative measures, and as such, the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be applied to challenge them. The court also addressed the issue of whether the notifications were laid before Parliament as required by Section 38 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It concluded that even if the notifications were not laid before Parliament, their validity would not be affected, as the provision for laying them before Parliament was directory, not mandatory. Conclusion: 1. The petitioners are not entitled to a 50% rebate in excise duty for five years from their respective dates of commercial production. The rebate period is valid only up to March 31, 1984, as per the notifications issued by the Central Government. 2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied against the government in this case, as the notifications issued are legislative measures with statutory force. Judgment: The writ petition is dismissed, and there is no order as to costs. An oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution was refused, as the matter does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance.
|
