Promissory estoppel and trade sample taxation: exemption failed, and handloom cess applied to processed man-made fabric samples.

Promissory estoppel could not be used to block additional excise duty in lieu of sales tax on trade samples of processed man-made fabrics because the exemption notification was prospective and no clear promise, assurance, or consistent non-collection practice by the taxing authority was proved. The claim for exemption was therefore rejected. Trade samples, including cut pieces and full sarees used as samples, remained processed man-made fabrics for tariff purposes and were not excluded by any minimum-length rule. Handloom cess was accordingly held leviable on such samples, and the duty demands were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption from additional excise duty in lieu of sales tax on trade samples of processed man-made fabrics on the basis of promissory estoppel; (ii) whether trade samples of processed man-made fabrics were liable to handloom cess.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption from additional excise duty in lieu of sales tax on trade samples of processed man-made fabrics on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The exemption notification issued on 19-6-1976 was admitted to be prospective only. No material showed any promise or assurance by the Department that the additional duty would not be collected for the relevant period. The trade notice and the correspondence only reflected consideration of the industry's request and the subsequent issuance of the exemption notification. In the absence of any proved promise or representation, and in the absence of evidence of a general practice of non-collection, the plea of promissory estoppel could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption from additional excise duty in lieu of sales tax was rejected and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether trade samples of processed man-made fabrics were liable to handloom cess.

Analysis: Trade samples such as full sarees and cut pieces of specified lengths did not cease to be processed man-made fabrics merely because they were cut for sample purposes. A piece cut from a running length remained fabric in trade and for tariff purposes, and no minimum length exemption was shown. Since the cess was leviable on processed man-made fabrics, it applied equally to trade samples of such fabrics.

Conclusion: The liability to handloom cess on trade samples was upheld and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the duty demands were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against tax recovery in the absence of a clear promise or assurance by the taxing authority, and trade samples remain dutiable where the tariff levies duty on the underlying fabric without a minimum-length exclusion.

---