Equitable estoppel cannot defeat statutory excise recovery where an exemption notification does not cover the goods.

Equitable estoppel could not bar recovery of short-levied additional excise duty where the exemption notification, as amended, did not cover the goods. The Excise Superintendent's mistaken representation could not override the statutory power of the proper officer under the Central Excise Rules to recover duty lawfully short levied. Because estoppel cannot defeat a statutory liability or prevent enforcement of a statutory power, the claim based on equity failed and recovery of the additional excise duty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could resist recovery of short-levied additional excise duty on the ground of equitable estoppel based on a mistaken representation by the Excise Superintendent.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification, as amended, did not extend to the goods in question, and the duty was lawfully recoverable under the statutory scheme. The representation made by the Superintendent could not override the power of the proper officer under the Central Excise Rules to recover duty short levied. Equitable estoppel is a principle of equity and cannot prevail against a statutory liability or prevent enforcement of a statutory power.

Conclusion: The plea of equitable estoppel failed, and the recovery of additional excise duty was upheld against the petitioner.

---