9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t call for supersession of the Notification No. 66. Once public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the principle should be applicable even in cases where a period has been indicated. The Government is competent to resile from a promise even if there is no manifest public interest involved, provided, of course, no one is put in any adverse situation which cannot be rectified. However, in the present case, there is a supervening public interest and hence it shouId not be mandatory for the Government to give a notice before withdrawing the exemption. Appeal dismissed. - 3000 of 1984 - - - Dated:- 20-12-1996 - A.M. Ahmadi, CJI, N.P. Singh and Sujata V. Manohar, JJ. [Judgment per : Ahmadi, CJI]. - The present appeal impugns the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 16-3-1983 which dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the Notification dated 16-10-1980 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, being Notification No. 205/T-No. 355/141/80-Cus. I. (hereinafter referred to as "Notification No. 205"). This Notification was issued in supersession of an earlier Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as is in excess of forty per cent ad valorem. (K. Chandramouli) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India ." The appellants alleged that they imported the PVC resin on the assurance that there would be no customs duty imposed upon it and that but for this exemption, they would not have imported the PVC resin as that would have been uneconomical. They, therefore, contend that the Government should be estopped from withdrawing the benefit of Notification No. 66. 2.The impugned judgment of the High Court is quite brief. It relies entirely on a Full Bench decision of the same High Court in the case of Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. and Another v. Government of India and Others - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 87 (Delhi). The primary focus of the judgment in the case of Bombay Conductors (supra) was that imposition of taxes and withdrawal thereof are legislative functions and since there can be no estoppel against the legislature, the withdrawal Notification was not hit by the principles of estoppel. The impugned judgment, however, does not dispute that the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be attracted against the State. However, after an analysis of various previous judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption of taxes and levies. But when to exempt and when to impose duty is left to the executive by the legislature. It will depend on the economic climate. New times require new measures. In a world of growing interdependence the first thing every country wants is protection for its domestic industry. Governed by the market forces and the laws of supply44. and demand, if the Government finds that it must withdraw the exemption notification at once it can do so. What actuated the Government to take the step of exemption and reimposition was enlightened self-interest, such self-interest as would subserve the common good. The imposition and exemption of customs duty are the chief vehicles of the Government to protect a domestic market and to steady the level of prices. The tariffs are its chosen instruments to shield domestic production from foreign competition." The same impugned Notification No. 205 came to be challenged in another set of appeals decided by this Court in Kasinka Trading Anr. etc. v. Union of India Anr. - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 782 (SC) = JT 1994 (7) S.C, 362. The Notification was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of M.N. Venkatachaliah, CJI. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termination of applicability of promissory estoppel(1) against public authority/Government hinges upon balance of equity or `public interest'. It is the Court which has to determine whether the Government(2) should be held exempt from the liability of the "promise" or "representation". In the present case, the first Notification exempting the customs duty on PVC itself recites "...Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in public interest so to do...". In the Notification issued later which gave rise to the present cause of action, the same recitation is present. 4.In Kasinka, the Court has actually gone into this aspect. In Para 19, the Court says : "PVC resins, it is not disputed, is manufactured in India and is also imported from abroad. In the counter to the Writ Petition filed by the Union of India in the High Court, the justification for the issuance of the exemption Notification No. 66/79 in the "public interest" was spelt out by the respondents. It was stated that it was with a view to equalising sale prices of the indigenous and the imported material and to make the commodity available to the consumer at a uniform price, keeping in view the trends i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the PVC resin without the exemption (sic) as that would have been "unviable" "uneconomical" and further that many persons took full advantage of the exemption; moreover, the exemption accorded preferential treatment to some persons, but not to the appellants. The facts of the economic situation explained in the judgment of Kasinka have not been controverted. Nor is it alleged by the appellants that public interest did not call for supersession of the Notification No. 66. 5.The next question is whether the fact that the Notification No. 66 mentioned the period during which it was to remain in force, would make any difference to the situation. In other words, could it be said that an exemption notified without specifying the period within which the exemption would remain in force, would be withdrawn in public interest but not the one in which a period has been so specified? Once public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the principle should be applicable even in cases where a period has been indicated. The Government is competent to resile from a promise even if there is no manifest public interest involved, provided, of course, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
