https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310467 The State retained power to change excise policy despite an earlier liquor settlement arrangement, because the grant and renewal framework reserved that discretion and no enforceable promise barred revision. A later auction-cum-tender policy was upheld as a genuine public-interest change aimed at avoiding monopoly and protecting revenue, so promissory estoppel and the Article 14 arbitrariness challenge failed. Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 did not restrict such a policy shift. The challenge to the new policy was rejected, and the licensees were held entitled to return of the National Saving Certificates furnished as security. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:21:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310467 The State retained power to change excise policy despite an earlier liquor settlement arrangement, because the grant and renewal framework reserved that discretion and no enforceable promise barred revision. A later auction-cum-tender policy was upheld as a genuine public-interest change aimed at avoiding monopoly and protecting revenue, so promissory estoppel and the Article 14 arbitrariness challenge failed. Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 did not restrict such a policy shift. The challenge to the new policy was rejected, and the licensees were held entitled to return of the National Saving Certificates furnished as security. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310467