https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41837 The court held that the rate of additional duty should be based on the date of presentation of Bills of Entry, not the date of entry into territorial waters. It ruled in favor of applying the rate in force at the time of presenting Bills of Entry, leading to the enhanced rate being applicable. The court rejected the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the legislative power to modify duties. Additionally, it clarified that the impugned notification was prospective, not retrospective, and dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the respondents to collect the additional duty at the enhanced rate. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:36:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41837 The court held that the rate of additional duty should be based on the date of presentation of Bills of Entry, not the date of entry into territorial waters. It ruled in favor of applying the rate in force at the time of presenting Bills of Entry, leading to the enhanced rate being applicable. The court rejected the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the legislative power to modify duties. Additionally, it clarified that the impugned notification was prospective, not retrospective, and dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the respondents to collect the additional duty at the enhanced rate. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41837