https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42511 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the public notice dated 7th April 1978, which deleted certain entries from the Schedule, should apply prospectively. The judgment emphasized that the claims for refund were time-barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act and rejected the application of promissory estoppel in this case. The petitioners were declared entitled to interest on bank guarantees realized by the respondents, with the court directing the respondents to pay costs to the petitioners. en-us Thu, 13 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:43:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42511 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the public notice dated 7th April 1978, which deleted certain entries from the Schedule, should apply prospectively. The judgment emphasized that the claims for refund were time-barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act and rejected the application of promissory estoppel in this case. The petitioners were declared entitled to interest on bank guarantees realized by the respondents, with the court directing the respondents to pay costs to the petitioners. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42511