Strict compliance with incentive scheme conditions governs subsidy entitlement; promissory estoppel cannot extend benefits beyond the scheme.

Eligibility under an industrial incentive scheme must be strictly satisfied before subsidy or exemption can be claimed. The unit qualified for fixed capital investment subsidy because it met the Scheme conditions, including registration, eligibility and the required VAT-related certificates, and the double-benefit objection failed. Interest subsidy was payable only up to 31 August 2011 because the Scheme required full payment within the due dates and the prescribed certificate, which were not shown for the later period; the subsequent one-time settlement did not extend entitlement. Waiver of electricity duty was sustained, and promissory estoppel could not enlarge benefits beyond the Scheme terms or override unmet conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the unit was entitled to fixed capital investment subsidy under the Scheme. (ii) Whether the unit was entitled to interest subsidy up to 31 August 2011 and whether any further interest subsidy could be claimed on the basis of the subsequent one-time settlement. (iii) Whether the unit was entitled to waiver of electricity duty and whether promissory estoppel could extend the subsidy claim.

Issue (i): Whether the unit was entitled to fixed capital investment subsidy under the Scheme.

Analysis: The Scheme required the claimant to fall within Scale-1 and to satisfy the conditions for subsidy, including the eligibility and payment mechanism under the relevant clauses. The unit was registered for assistance under the Scheme, was found eligible for incentives, and had produced the requisite VAT-related certificates. The objection based on alleged double benefit was rejected because the Corporation acted in different capacities under the Scheme and the adjustment mechanism did not defeat entitlement once eligibility was established.

Conclusion: The unit was entitled to fixed capital investment subsidy.

Issue (ii): Whether the unit was entitled to interest subsidy up to 31 August 2011 and whether any further interest subsidy could be claimed on the basis of the subsequent one-time settlement.

Analysis: The Scheme made interest subsidy payable only where the unit had paid the interest in full within the due dates and the prescribed certificate was available. The record showed compliance only up to 31 August 2011, and the later one-time settlement did not satisfy the Scheme for the subsequent period. The conditions for subsidy were therefore met only for the earlier period, and promissory estoppel could not be invoked in the absence of a withdrawn or enforceable promise extending the benefit beyond the Scheme conditions.

Conclusion: The unit was entitled to interest subsidy only up to 31 August 2011, and no further interest subsidy was payable.

Issue (iii): Whether the unit was entitled to waiver of electricity duty and whether promissory estoppel could extend the subsidy claim.

Analysis: The claim for electricity duty waiver was not effectively dislodged and no infirmity was shown in the grant of that benefit under the Scheme. The plea of promissory estoppel was also held inapplicable because no material showed a binding promise that was later withdrawn so as to override the Scheme conditions.

Conclusion: The unit was entitled to waiver of electricity duty, and promissory estoppel did not enlarge the subsidy entitlement.

Final Conclusion: The Scheme benefits were substantially upheld in favour of the unit, but the subsidy claim was confined to the extent permitted by the Scheme conditions and the later period of interest subsidy was not available.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility conditions in an incentive or exemption scheme must be strictly satisfied before the benefit can be claimed, and once eligibility is established the scheme may be applied to grant the benefit according to its terms; the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot override unmet statutory or scheme conditions.

---