The Delhi High Court has held that in case of the rescission of notification for 100% excise duty exemption, Promissory Estoppel is not maintainable against the Union of India (UOI).
In the case of M/s Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. Union of India, the notification granting 100% exemption from excise duty was issued and later on rescinded. The petitioner did not challenge the rescission of the notification and can not claim promissory estoppel.
The petitioner namely M/s Hero Motocorp Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacturing of two-wheelers in the State of Uttarakhand. In the year 2002, the Union of India with the objective to promote industrial development issued a notification through the Ministry of Commerce and Industry that 100% excise duty exemption will be granted for the period of 10 years from the date of the commencement of the commercial production. However, this notification was later rescinded by the government. The petitioner did not challenge the rescission of the notification which was ultra vires of the proviso to Section 174 (2) (c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act. However, in this petition, the petitioner is claiming the promissory estoppel.
The issue raised in this case was whether in the case of a rescission of notification for 100% excise duty exemption, promissory estoppel is maintainable against the Union of India (UOI) or not?
The division bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula and Justice Vipin Sanghi it was affirmed that in case of the rescission of notification for 100% excise duty exemption, promissory estoppel is not maintainable against Union of India (UOI), on the grounds that the petitioner did not challenge the rescission of the notification and so, can not claim promissory estoppel.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
