Page 119 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. V.V.F. LTD. 509

objectives of the Government, to curb misuse and revenue consideration. It is
submitted that it was a part of review exercise and in background of reports of
misuse that the amendment notification dated 27-3-2008 was issued;
8.6.4 The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against
exercise of powers under the statute;
8.6.5 The bar of promissory estoppel is not applicable in fiscal matters;
8.6.6 The Court has to look into the notification with a presumption of
validity, and not examining the matter with microscopic view to weigh the suffi-
ciency of the material available;
8.6.7 The doctrine of promissory estoppel sought to be invoked in the
present case is not available. The doctrine of promissory estoppel will not be ap-
plicable if the change in stand of the Government is made on account of public
policy and in the public interest;
8.6.8 There are limitations while invoking the doctrine of promissory
estoppel. If the statute has permitted the power on withdrawal to the same au-
thority, it may result into allowing the doctrine to operate in contravention to the
statute;
8.6.9 The Word ‘Promissory Estoppel” means that a party is prevented
by his own acts from claiming a right to detriment of the other party who was
entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly;
8.6.10 In respect of the exemptions that have been made by the Gov-
ernment, the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not be applicable if the change
in the stand of the Government is made on account of public policy.
8.7 Heavy reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court on “Prom-
issory Estoppel” in the cases of Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274
= 1994 (74) E.L.T. 782 (S.C.), Darshan Oils (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC
345 = 1995 (75) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.), Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India, (1997) 3
SCC 398 = 1997 (89) E.L.T. 452 (S.C.), STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills, (1998) 1 SCC
572 = 1998 (97) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.), Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner of Trade
Tax, U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 228 = 2004 (178) E.L.T. 48 (S.C.), State of Rajasthan v. Ma-
haveer Oil Industries, (1999) 4 SCC 357, Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P.,
(2011) 3 SCC 193, DG of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports, (2016) 2 SCC 226 = 2015
(326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9
SCC 1 = 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.).
8.8 It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Union of India that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact
that by Notification No. 16 of 2008, as such, there is no material change in the
earlier policy and, therefore, as such the amendment in the Notification No.
39/2001 dated 31-7-2001 vide Notification No. 16/2008 cannot be said to be
withdrawal of benefit already promised earlier. Therefore it cannot be said that
the subsequent notification is hit by the principle of promissory estoppel, as held
by the High Court.
8.9 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted that the
High Court has erred in concluding that the bar of promissory estoppel would
operate against the Union of India by withdrawal of the exemption benefits and
that the policy of withdrawal of benefit/incentive is retrospective and not
retro-active.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  119