1996 (4) TMI 134 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the constitutionality and legality of Notification No. 203/87 dated 9-9-1987 withdrawing import facility for Aerated Water industries.
2. Claim of set-off under Notification No. 201/79 for excise duty paid on raw materials.
3. Allegation of cascading effect of excise duties on raw materials and components.
4. Invocation of Promissory Estoppel and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Comparison with similar cases regarding Modvat facility revocation.
6. Decision on the applicability of promissory estoppel and Article 14.

The petitioners sought the declaration of Notification No. 203/87 dated 9-9-1987 as unconstitutional and illegal, which withdrew the import facility for Aerated Water industries. The petitioners, a company engaged in manufacturing aerated waters, claimed set-off under Notification No. 201/79 for excise duty paid on raw materials like synthetic essence. They alleged a cascading effect of excise duties on inputs, enhancing the final product's value. The petition challenged the notification on grounds of Promissory Estoppel and Article 14 violation, citing the Long Term Fiscal Policy Statement and unequal distribution of levies in different areas. The respondents contended that promissory estoppel did not apply, referencing previous judgments where similar facilities were revoked without breaching Article 14. The court analyzed the previous decisions and concluded that the withdrawal of the facility did not breach promissory estoppel or Article 14, as concessions could be revoked without seeking anything in return. The court held that the withdrawal did not violate any legal principles and dismissed the petition, ordering the refund of any security deposited by the petitioners without costs.