2023 (4) TMI 605 - HC - Central Excise

Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Seeking grant of exemption from payment of Duty of Excise or Additional Duty of Excise - Cement - applicability of N/N. 56/2002-Central Excise dated 14.11.2002 - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA ANOTHER ETC. ETC. VERSUS M/S V.V.F LIMITED ANOTHER ETC. ETC. 2020 (4) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT after considering the entire matter in the light of latest exposition of law governing the Doctrine of Promissory Estopple came to the conclusion that the impugned notifications issued by the Government were not in violation of Doctrine of Promissory Estopple. The Hon ble Supreme Court held the impugned notifications clarificatory in nature and issued in public interest and also in the interest of revenue. Be that as it may the fact remains that the issue has now been given a quietus by the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/S V.V.F Limited by upholding the legal validity and sustainability of the impugned notifications in law. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court there remains nothing for this Court to adjudicate in this petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to two notifications by a company seeking exemption from Excise Duty on cement products and the application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

Challenge to Notifications:
The petitioner, a company with a cement manufacturing plant, challenged two notifications issued by the Central Government reducing the exemption from Excise Duty on its products. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notifications and a Mandamus to grant 100% exemption as per the previous notification.

Legal Position and Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioner contended that the notifications violated the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. The respondents argued that the notifications were clarificatory and issued in public interest and for revenue purposes. The Supreme Court held that the notifications were not in violation of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the legal validity of the impugned notifications, stating they were clarificatory and issued in public interest. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge based on the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. Following this authoritative pronouncement, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as there was no further issue to adjudicate.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.