Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court Rules Exclusion of Khasra Numbers Invalid, Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Central Excise Notification Case.</h1> <h3>Titan Industries Ltd. Versus The Joint Secretary to Government of India and others</h3> Titan Industries Ltd. Versus The Joint Secretary to Government of India and others - 2023 (385) E.L.T. 506 (Uttarakhand) Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the exclusion of certain Khasra numbers from the exemption list under the Central Excise Notification.2. Application of the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.3. Impact of subsequent notifications on pre-existing rights and exemptions under the Central Excise Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Exclusion of Certain Khasra Numbers:The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorari to quash the directions denying the benefit of exemption to their unit and directing them to deposit Central Excise duty with interest. The petitioner argued that the exclusion of Khasra Nos. 176B, 173B, and 176A from the exemption list (Annexure II) to the Central Excise Notification No. 50/2003 CE was improper and illegal. Initially, these Khasra numbers were included in the exemption list, which led the petitioner to invest significantly and expand production capacity. The subsequent exclusion of these Khasra numbers in the 2005 Notification created an anomalous situation where part of the unit was entitled to benefits while another part was not.2. Application of the Principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel:The petitioner argued that the exclusion was against the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. The petitioner had invested funds and increased production capacity based on the incentives provided by the Central Government. The respondents' action of excluding the Khasra numbers after initially including them in the exemption list was seen as a breach of the promise made to the petitioner. The court noted that the principle of promissory estoppel applies to the government unless there is an overriding public interest, which was not demonstrated by the respondents in this case.3. Impact of Subsequent Notifications on Pre-existing Rights and Exemptions:The court examined Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states that any amendment, repeal, or rescission of a notification should not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the previous notification unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court found that the subsequent notification, which excluded the Khasra numbers, could not take away the benefits already granted to the petitioner under the earlier notification. The court held that the benefits given to the petitioner as per Annexure II of the Notification No. 50/2003 should continue for past, present, and future transactions.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the principle of promissory estoppel applied, and the government could not withdraw the benefits initially granted without demonstrating an overriding public interest. The benefits under the original notification were to be maintained for the petitioner, and the subsequent exclusion of the Khasra numbers was deemed invalid. The court directed that the benefits given to the petitioner as per Annexure II of the Notification No. 50/2003 should continue to be provided for all transactions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found