https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42592 An exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as subordinate legislation, so the doctrine of promissory estoppel was capable of applying to it where the Government had issued an industrial incentive and the assessee had altered its position in reliance on that assurance. The Court also accepted that the concession was meant to operate for the stipulated seven-year period from first clearance, and withdrawal before expiry was inconsistent with the representation made. The rescission was therefore ineffective against the respondent, and the relief granted below was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 12 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:20:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42592 An exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as subordinate legislation, so the doctrine of promissory estoppel was capable of applying to it where the Government had issued an industrial incentive and the assessee had altered its position in reliance on that assurance. The Court also accepted that the concession was meant to operate for the stipulated seven-year period from first clearance, and withdrawal before expiry was inconsistent with the representation made. The rescission was therefore ineffective against the respondent, and the relief granted below was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42592