https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42966 The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the rebate beyond March 31, 1984, as per the clear terms of the notification. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of an unequivocal promise extending the rebate period. The petition was dismissed without costs awarded, and the Court did not address the qualification of the plant as a mini cement plant, given the resolution of the primary issue. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:11:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42966 The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the rebate beyond March 31, 1984, as per the clear terms of the notification. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of an unequivocal promise extending the rebate period. The petition was dismissed without costs awarded, and the Court did not address the qualification of the plant as a mini cement plant, given the resolution of the primary issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42966