https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351516 The Supreme Court held that the respondent-industrial unit was liable to pay excise duty for the period before exemption notifications were issued but entitled to a refund for the subsequent period. The Court rejected the retrospective application of the exemption based on the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions. It aimed to avoid future disputes by clarifying the law and directing the adjustment of accounts between the parties to settle the excise duty liability and refund entitlement issues. en-us Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351516 The Supreme Court held that the respondent-industrial unit was liable to pay excise duty for the period before exemption notifications were issued but entitled to a refund for the subsequent period. The Court rejected the retrospective application of the exemption based on the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions. It aimed to avoid future disputes by clarifying the law and directing the adjustment of accounts between the parties to settle the excise duty liability and refund entitlement issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351516