Page 59 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3
P. 59

2020 ]            PRINCE SPINTEX PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA         273
                       tion was issued levying auxiliary duty @ 12½ per cent ad valorem. Barely ten
                       days after the rescindment of the earlier notification, the Central Govern-
                       ment issued another Notification No. 186-Cus., dated 9-9-1980 once again
                       exempting wire rods and aluminium ingots from the whole of duty of cus-
                       toms. This notification was to remain operative till 31-3-1981 and it has re-
                       mained in force right through. The grievance of the appellants is that the
                       withdrawal of the exemption notification on 29-8-1980 was not at all justi-
                       fied and support for this argument is sought from the fact that within 10
                       days of the withdrawal notification, the Government had itself once again
                       issued a notification on 9-9-1980, reviving the exemption of customs duty.
                       Learned Counsel submitted that during the period of 10 days, the importers
                       whose goods arrived in India, were made liable to pay both the customs
                       duty as well as the auxiliary duty, while those whose goods arrived either
                       after 9-9-1980 or before 29-8-1980 were not required to pay the same.
                       27.  Indeed, the submission on the fact situation is not controvertible but in
                       the absence of any material placed before the High Court or even in this
                       appeal to establish that the notification dated 29-8-1980 was issued for any
                       oblique or extraneous consideration and was not “in public interest”, it is
                       not possible to find fault with that notification for the reasons we have al-
                       ready given while dealing with the first batch of cases. The appellants, who
                       are in business, have to be prepared for tides in the business. In Pournami
                       Oil Mills, 1986 Supp SCC 728, it was the incentive to set up new industry in
                       the State with a view to boost the industrialisation that exemption had been
                       granted and it was in that fact situation that the doctrine of promissory es-
                       toppel was held available to the appellant therein. Again in Bakul Oil Indus-
                       tries, (1987) 1 SCC 31, it was the incentive to set up industries in a conform-
                       ing area that the exemption had been granted and the Court held that the
                       Government could withdraw an exemption granted by it earlier only if
                       such withdrawal could be made without offending the rule of promissory
                       estoppel and without depriving an industry entitled to claim exemption for
                       the entire specified period for which exemption had been promised to it at
                       the time of giving incentive. Both these cases therefore cannot advance the
                       case of the appellant and are distinguishable on facts because the exemp-
                       tion notification under Section 25 of the Act which was issued in this case
                       did not hold out any incentive for setting up of any industry to use PVC
                       resins and on the other hand had been issued in exercise of the statutory
                       powers, in public interest and subsequently withdrawn in exercise of the
                       same powers again in public interest. In our opinion, no justifiable preju-
                       dice was caused to the appellants in the absence of any unequivocal prom-
                       ise by the Government not to act and review its policy even if the necessity
                       warranted and the “public interest” so demanded. Thus, in the facts and
                       circumstances of these cases, the appellants cannot invoke the doctrine of
                       promissory estoppel to question the withdrawal notification issued under
                       Section 25 of the Act.”
                       4.6  It was submitted that under the EPCG Scheme no incentive is given
               to the petitioner which it can hold against the Government and that the notifica-
               tion granting exemption was issued in exercise of powers under Section 25 of the
               Customs Act, therefore, the doctrine  of promissory estoppel would not be  at-
               tracted in the present case.
                       4.7  Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
               the case of Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports and Another, (2016) 2
               SCC 226 = 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.), wherein the Court held thus :-
                       “106.  We may suitably refer to the judgment of this Court in Kasinka Trad-
                       ing v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274. In that case, the Government of India
                                    GST LAW TIMES      16th April 2020      179
   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64