Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Madras Vanaspati Ltd. vs Union Of India on 4 February, 1992 cites

Dipak Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India on 5 February, 1990

In Deepak Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1991 (52) E.L.T. 222] the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was concerned with the very same identical question, as in the present case and the Division Bench while sustaining the claim of the manufacturer held, that the right, which was acquired as a result of the statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively, unless statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication it has such an effect, and inasmuch as the Notification No. 39/89-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 25-8-1989 merely rescinded the earlier Notifications and not the Rules themselves, the only consequence would be that from the date on which, the said Notification came to be rescinded, the manufacturers concerned cannot claim to earn the benefit of credit of money, while manufacturing their final products by using the oil concerned, but at the same time they cannot be deprived of their right to use credit of money which they had earned validly. The learned Judges of Gujarat High Court also placed reliance on the fact that Rules 57N had continued to be on the statute, a book and that the said rule confers a right to use the credit already earned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Jayprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti And ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 March, 1982

In Jayaprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti v. Union of India [1983 (12) E.L.T. 58] a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that since the policy of the Government varies and depends on a number of economic factors, the courts have neither the withall nor the equipment to decide the wisdom of that policy. That was a case where the Division Bench was concerned with a challenge to an exemption notification and the Court was of the view that the exemption notification issued under R. 8, cannot be questioned on the ground that the policy of the Government was not static.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Ramachandran vs M.G. Ramachandran, The Chief Minister ... on 11 August, 1986

In S. Ramachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1591 Madras 371) a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, took the view that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not be implied in the matter of Government giving concession or assurances and that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative function nor can the Government of Public Authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory provision or that the principle of promissory estoppel could be used to compel the Government of Public Authority to carry out a promise or representation which is contrary to law or which is outside their authority or power. That was a case where the ultimate decision rendered turned also upon the absence of the necessary factual basis for the very applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel as well as on the applicability of the said doctrine itself so as to preclude the legislature or competent authority exercising statutory duties and functions from discharging their duties for future unlike the case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sulochana Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India on 22 February, 1991

In Sulochana Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [1991 (56) E.L.T. 22], Kanakaraj J. has held that there can be no estoppel against a Authority to exercise from time to time its powers either by issuing Notification giving a benefit and withdrawing the same and that the budget speech of the Finance Minister extending Modvat Scheme to aerated waters, cannot be relied upon to challenge the subsequently withdrawal of the applicability of the scheme as such.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Black Diamond Beverages Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 4 May, 1988

(b) The doctrine of promissory estoppel claimed by the petitioner is not applicable, since, according to the respondents, there was no promise by the Prime Minister or Finance Minister in the Parliament to the industry that the scheme in question will continue for a specified period. There cannot be any estoppel against the legislative powers of Centre and States and in this connection the decision in Black Diamond Beverages v. Union of India [1988 (36) E.L.T. 225 (Cal.)] is relied upon.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next