Appellant denied reimbursement under IPRS, no entitlement due to non-payment. Estoppel by conduct inapplicable.

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) as they did not pay the required price, leading to unjust enrichment. The court rejected the appellant's argument that reimbursement should be interpreted as a subsidy. Additionally, the doctrine of estoppel by conduct did not apply as the appellant had agreed to refund any excess payment, and there was no precise representation inducing reliance. The High Court's judgment dismissing the appeal was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. True purport of International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS).
2. Doctrine of estoppel by conduct.

Summary:

Issue 1: True Purport of International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS)

The appeal concerns the interpretation of the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) introduced by the Government of India. The scheme aimed to protect exporters of engineering goods from the higher domestic price of steel compared to international prices by reimbursing the price difference. The appellant claimed benefits under this scheme, but the Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC) later refused to recognize the entitlement, citing the use of self-manufactured steel without JPC price elements. The Council demanded a refund of Rs. 10,37,96,604/- paid in excess under a mistake, along with interest. The appellant argued that the scheme did not require actual payment of domestic price post-1985 amendment and that the term "reimbursement" should be interpreted as a subsidy for exports. However, the court held that reimbursement presupposes previous payment and since the appellant did not pay the JPC price, they were not entitled to reimbursement. The court concluded that allowing the appellant's claim would result in unjust enrichment and upheld the Council's demand for repayment.

Issue 2: Doctrine of Estoppel by Conduct

The appellant alternatively argued that the EEPC's conduct in continuing to pay benefits under the IPRS estopped them from demanding repayment. The doctrine of estoppel by conduct requires a precise and unambiguous representation that induces the other party to alter their position. The court noted that the appellant had undertaken to refund any excess payment in their application for price protection, thus negating the claim of estoppel. The correspondence between the parties confirmed the non-payment of JPC price elements, further weakening the appellant's position. The court found no basis for estoppel and upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal without costs.

---