https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32617 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that their accrued right to exemption under Notification Annexure P-1 was protected by Section 38A(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court applied the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, finding that the withdrawal of the exemption would cause significant harm to the petitioners, who had relied on the promise of exemption for ten years. The court deemed the enforcement of Notification Annexure P-11 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, ultimately allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to honor the exemption until its expiration without imposing excise duty. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32617 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that their accrued right to exemption under Notification Annexure P-1 was protected by Section 38A(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court applied the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, finding that the withdrawal of the exemption would cause significant harm to the petitioners, who had relied on the promise of exemption for ten years. The court deemed the enforcement of Notification Annexure P-11 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, ultimately allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to honor the exemption until its expiration without imposing excise duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32617