Customs duty follows the statutory date, and fiscal concessions cannot survive a lawful change in notification or delegated rules.

Customs duty liability is governed by the statutory date under Section 15 of the Customs Act, so goods cleared after the revised notification date attracted the higher rate and not the earlier concession. Promissory estoppel does not bar the State from changing a fiscal policy or duty notification, because no estoppel can operate against a statute and a concessionary regime creates no enforceable right to its continuance. The Project Import Regulations, 1986 and the impugned notification were also treated as within the delegated powers under the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act, and the excessive delegation challenge failed. The enhanced duty and regulatory framework were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the import was entitled to duty concession under the earlier notification or was liable to duty at the higher rate applicable from 3-4-1986; (ii) Whether promissory estoppel could prevent the State from ing the revised fiscal notification; (iii) Whether the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and the impugned notification were beyond the power conferred by the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or suffered from excessive delegation.

Issue (i): Whether the import was entitled to duty concession under the earlier notification or was liable to duty at the higher rate applicable from 3-4-1986.

Analysis: Liability to customs duty depends on the statutory dates fixed by Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. For goods imported for home consumption, the relevant date is the date of presentation of the bill of entry. The goods in question were cleared after 3-4-1986, when the new notification and enhanced rates had come into force. The contractual arrangement and invoicing prior to that date did not control the statutory incidence of duty.

Conclusion: The higher rate applicable from 3-4-1986 applied, and the claim to the earlier concession failed.

Issue (ii): Whether promissory estoppel could prevent the State from ing the revised fiscal notification.

Analysis: In fiscal matters the State is entitled to alter policy and rates within the constitutional framework. There can be no estoppel against a statute, and a concessionary duty regime does not create an enforceable right to insist on its continuance. Article 265 of the Constitution of India requires levy only by authority of law, and the change in policy was within lawful governmental power.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel did not apply against the revised duty notification.

Issue (iii): Whether the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and the impugned notification were beyond the power conferred by the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or suffered from excessive delegation.

Analysis: Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers power to make regulations, and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides the statutory framework for classification and rate of duty under the First Schedule, including Chapter 98. The Regulations were treated as part of the integrated fiscal scheme and were supported by the parent enactments. The existence of exemption power under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not invalidate the separate regulatory power. The challenge of excessive delegation was also rejected.

Conclusion: The Regulations and the notification were within statutory power and were not invalid for excessive delegation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the enhanced customs duty and to the validity of the regulatory framework failed, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal taxation, the incidence and rate of duty are governed by the statute and the relevant statutory date, and neither prior commercial arrangements nor promissory estoppel can override a lawful change in duty or invalidate regulations made within the parent enactment's delegated power.

---