Advance licence norms apply on the date of grant, not application; no vested right or promissory estoppel was established.

In an advance licence scheme, filing an application did not create a vested right to have the licence issued under the value addition norm then in force; the governing norm was the one applicable on the date of grant. Promissory estoppel could not freeze the earlier norm because the scheme contained no assurance that the application-date norm would apply, and no sufficient factual basis was shown for the doctrine. Alleged delay by the licensing authority also did not displace the revised norm, as no deliberate or undue delay was proved. The challenge to the revised value addition requirement therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether filing an application for an advance licence created a vested right to have the licence issued according to the value addition norm in force on the date of application; (ii) whether promissory estoppel barred application of the revised norm; and (iii) whether the licensing authority's delay in issuing the licences prevented application of the revised norm.

Issue (i): whether filing an application for an advance licence created a vested right to have the licence issued according to the value addition norm in force on the date of application.

Analysis: The scheme was a trade facilitation measure intended to enable duty-free imports only for the purpose of export production, and the policy itself made the grant of an advance licence dependent on the licence being issued in accordance with the norm then in force. Mere filing of an application did not confer any pre-existing entitlement to a licence. The relevant date was the date of grant of licence, not the date of application. The statutory character of the policy did not change this position.

Conclusion: No vested right arose on filing the application, and the revised value addition norm applied.

Issue (ii): whether promissory estoppel barred application of the revised norm.

Analysis: The plea of promissory estoppel could not succeed in the context of an advance licence scheme where import preceded export and the scheme did not contain any assurance that the norm on the date of application would be frozen. No sufficient factual foundation was laid to establish the ingredients of the doctrine.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel did not operate against the respondents.

Issue (iii): whether the licensing authority's delay in issuing the licences prevented application of the revised norm.

Analysis: Issuance of an advance licence required verification and satisfaction regarding compliance with the scheme, and the record did not establish deliberate or undue delay by the authorities. In the absence of a pleaded and proved case of laches or procrastination, no equitable relief could be founded on the mere fact of intervening policy change.

Conclusion: The alleged delay did not prevent application of the revised norm.

Final Conclusion: The scheme was held to govern by the norm in force on the date of grant of licence, and the appellant's challenge to the revised value addition requirement failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an advance licence scheme, no vested right accrues merely on filing an application, and unless the scheme itself fixes the applicable norm by reference to the date of application, the norm in force on the date of grant of the licence governs; promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel a contrary result absent a clear factual and legal foundation.

---