Withdrawal of fiscal concession was upheld where no promissory estoppel or Article 14 breach was shown.

A fiscal concession under the excise regime, once granted by notification, can be withdrawn by the Government as a matter of policy. The text states that promissory estoppel did not apply because no binding assurance or reciprocal detriment was shown, so the withdrawal was not restrained on that ground. It further states that Article 14 was not violated because the concession was withdrawn for the class of aerated waters as a whole, without hostile discrimination or arbitrary classification. The operative point is that withdrawal of a notified fiscal benefit is valid absent enforceable assurance or unequal treatment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether withdrawal of the Modvat facility by Notification No. 203/87 dated 9-9-1987 was barred by promissory estoppel; (ii) whether the withdrawal offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether withdrawal of the Modvat facility by Notification No. 203/87 dated 9-9-1987 was barred by promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The concession under the excise regime was granted by notification and was capable of being withdrawn by the Government. No reciprocal detriment or binding assurance preventing withdrawal was established. The withdrawal was treated as a change in policy concerning a fiscal concession, and not as a representation creating enforceable estoppel against the State.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and the challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the withdrawal of the Modvat facility offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The notification withdrew the concession for the class of aerated waters as a whole. No case of impermissible discrimination or hostile classification was made out merely because the concession had earlier been extended and was later withdrawn. The measure was treated as a policy decision and not as arbitrary State action violating equality.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 14 was established and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The withdrawal of the Modvat concession was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal concession granted by notification can be withdrawn by the Government in exercise of policy powers, and such withdrawal does not give rise to promissory estoppel or an Article 14 violation absent a legally enforceable assurance or discriminatory treatment.

---