https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34917 The court dismissed the petitions challenging excise duty notifications, ruling in favor of the government. The court held that the changes were justified in public interest to prevent misuse and meet scheme objectives. It found no violation of promissory estoppel or Article 14, as amendments were uniform and aimed at addressing issues. Judicial review of fiscal policy was limited, and the government had authority to make changes under the Central Excise Act. The court suggested petitioners address specific concerns with the government. en-us Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34917 The court dismissed the petitions challenging excise duty notifications, ruling in favor of the government. The court held that the changes were justified in public interest to prevent misuse and meet scheme objectives. It found no violation of promissory estoppel or Article 14, as amendments were uniform and aimed at addressing issues. Judicial review of fiscal policy was limited, and the government had authority to make changes under the Central Excise Act. The court suggested petitioners address specific concerns with the government. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34917