https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347696 The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the demand for the differential excise duty. The appellant's argument that the 1987 Incentive Scheme entitled them to retain the difference in excise duty was rejected. The court held that Section 11-D, with its non obstante clause, overrides previous provisions and mandates that any duty collected must be paid to the government. The court found no procedural lapses by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs and rejected the application of promissory estoppel. The appeal was decided in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the supremacy of Section 11-D in the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347696 The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the demand for the differential excise duty. The appellant's argument that the 1987 Incentive Scheme entitled them to retain the difference in excise duty was rejected. The court held that Section 11-D, with its non obstante clause, overrides previous provisions and mandates that any duty collected must be paid to the government. The court found no procedural lapses by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs and rejected the application of promissory estoppel. The appeal was decided in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the supremacy of Section 11-D in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347696