Promissory estoppel cannot secure expired tax incentives when a later notification expressly excludes the claimant's manufacturing unit.

Promissory estoppel could not be used to claim deferred tax under an incentive scheme that had already lapsed, because the petitioner obtained registration after the scheme expired and began production later. The subsequent notification superseded the earlier scheme and placed mini steel plants, induction, arc and submerged furnace units, and rolling mills in the negative list. As the petitioner's unit fell within that excluded category, no enforceable promise survived and the tax deferment benefit was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to deferment of tax on the basis of promissory estoppel under the earlier incentive scheme, and whether the subsequent notification validly excluded units manufacturing goods placed in the negative list.

Analysis: The earlier scheme granting deferred payment of tax remained operative only up to 23.07.2004. The petitioner obtained provisional registration after the scheme had lapsed and commenced commercial production much later. The later notification dated 30.03.2005 superseded the earlier scheme and expressly placed mini steel plants, induction/arc/submerged furnaces and rolling mills in the negative list. Since the petitioner's products fell within that excluded category, no enforceable promise survived in its favour and the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to compel the grant of the incentive.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of deferred payment of tax, and the challenge based on promissory estoppel failed.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of the tax deferment benefit was upheld and the petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to claim a tax incentive when the earlier scheme has expired and the later governing notification expressly excludes the claimant's unit from eligibility.

---