Promissory estoppel applies to excise exemption notifications, preventing withdrawal of an industrial concession before the promised period ends.

An exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as subordinate legislation, so the doctrine of promissory estoppel was capable of applying to it where the Government had issued an industrial incentive and the assessee had altered its position in reliance on that assurance. The Court also accepted that the concession was meant to operate for the stipulated seven-year period from first clearance, and withdrawal before expiry was inconsistent with the representation made. The rescission was therefore ineffective against the respondent, and the relief granted below was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was subordinate legislation to which the doctrine of promissory estoppel could apply; (ii) whether the respondent was entitled to continue to receive the excise concession for the stipulated seven-year period from the date of first clearance.

Issue (i): Whether an exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was subordinate legislation to which the doctrine of promissory estoppel could apply.

Analysis: The notification was issued in exercise of statutory power under Rule 8(1) and not under plenary legislative power. The Court treated such a notification as subordinate legislation, and held that the argument that promissory estoppel could never operate against it was untenable. The doctrine was applied in light of the Government's assurance and the respondent's alteration of position in setting up the industry and acting on the announced concession.

Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory estoppel was applicable, and the rescission could not defeat the respondent's entitlement.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was entitled to continue to receive the excise concession for the stipulated seven-year period from the date of first clearance.

Analysis: The exemption notification expressly provided a concession for a definite period linked to the first clearance of tyres from the factory. On the facts, the Court accepted that the concession was intended to operate for the stated period and that the respondent had satisfied the relevant conditions. Withdrawal of the concession before expiry of that period was therefore inconsistent with the representation on which the respondent had acted.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the concession for the stipulated seven-year period, and the withdrawal was ineffective against it.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order granting relief to the respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel can operate against the Government in relation to subordinate legislative exemptions when an industrial incentive is granted and acted upon, so that the concession cannot be withdrawn to the detriment of the party who relied on it within the promised period.

---