https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42240 A fiscal notification withdrawing MODVAT benefit was upheld as a valid exercise of statutory and delegated power. The Court held that the Budget Speech and earlier notifications did not amount to a clear and unambiguous promise, so promissory estoppel could not prevent withdrawal of the concession. It further found no violation of Article 14 because the challenger did not show that aerated waters were similarly situated to the commodities retained in the scheme or that the classification lacked rational basis. The withdrawal was also not an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g), and no prior hearing was required because issuance or revocation of a statutory notification is a legislative act, not an adjudicatory one. en-us Wed, 04 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42240 A fiscal notification withdrawing MODVAT benefit was upheld as a valid exercise of statutory and delegated power. The Court held that the Budget Speech and earlier notifications did not amount to a clear and unambiguous promise, so promissory estoppel could not prevent withdrawal of the concession. It further found no violation of Article 14 because the challenger did not show that aerated waters were similarly situated to the commodities retained in the scheme or that the classification lacked rational basis. The withdrawal was also not an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g), and no prior hearing was required because issuance or revocation of a statutory notification is a legislative act, not an adjudicatory one. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42240