Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.21 seconds)The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Section 156 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 157 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Pournami Oil Mills, Etc vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 December, 1986
In Poornami Oil Mills (supra), 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 estoppel was held available to the appellant therein.
Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986
Again in Bakul Oil Industries (supra) it was the incentive to set up industries in a conforming area that the exemption had been granted and the Court held that the Government could withdrawn an exemption granted by it earlier only if such withdrawal could be made without offending the rule of promissory estoppel and without depriving an industry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 examination for the entire specified period for which exemption had been promised to it at the time to giving incentive. Both these cases therefore cannot advance the case of the appellant and are distinguishable on facts because the exemption 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resins and on the other hand has been issued in exercise of the statutory powers, in public interest and subsequently withdrawn in exercise of the same powers again in public interest.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 prejudice was cause to the appellants in the absence of any unequivocal promise 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 and Act.