https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195829 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the amendment to Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., excluding certain activities from excise duty exemption, was prospective and did not apply to the petitioner's unit established before the amendment. The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to benefit from the original exemption, emphasizing the application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. The court found that the withdrawal of the exemption was not justified in the public interest and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to the benefits promised under the initial notification. en-us Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:01:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195829 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the amendment to Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., excluding certain activities from excise duty exemption, was prospective and did not apply to the petitioner's unit established before the amendment. The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to benefit from the original exemption, emphasizing the application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. The court found that the withdrawal of the exemption was not justified in the public interest and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to the benefits promised under the initial notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195829