https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394762 SC allowed the appeal, holding the subsequent notifications/policies were clarificatory and validly applied retrospectively. The Court found no taking away of vested rights and held the amendments merely clarified entitlement-limiting refunds to actual duty on value addition-so they were not barred by promissory estoppel. Where changes served public interest and revenue objectives and no fraud or mala fides was shown, courts should not restrain the State. The High Courts erred in quashing the notifications as retrospective/retroactive or as violating promissory estoppel. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394762 SC allowed the appeal, holding the subsequent notifications/policies were clarificatory and validly applied retrospectively. The Court found no taking away of vested rights and held the amendments merely clarified entitlement-limiting refunds to actual duty on value addition-so they were not barred by promissory estoppel. Where changes served public interest and revenue objectives and no fraud or mala fides was shown, courts should not restrain the State. The High Courts erred in quashing the notifications as retrospective/retroactive or as violating promissory estoppel. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394762