https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44164 Withdrawal of MODVAT benefit on aerated waters was treated as a fiscal policy decision within government discretion. The classification challenge failed because tax concessions may be granted or withdrawn for selected persons or objects so long as there is a rational basis, and no hostile discrimination was shown. Promissory estoppel did not apply because no clear promise or enforceable representation by the Government was established. The notification, issued as delegated legislation under Rule 57A, could be rescinded under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and the prospective withdrawal was not shown to be manifestly arbitrary. The substantive challenge therefore failed, while the credit-reversal letter was left to be pursued before the appellate authority with limitation relief. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:13:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44164 Withdrawal of MODVAT benefit on aerated waters was treated as a fiscal policy decision within government discretion. The classification challenge failed because tax concessions may be granted or withdrawn for selected persons or objects so long as there is a rational basis, and no hostile discrimination was shown. Promissory estoppel did not apply because no clear promise or enforceable representation by the Government was established. The notification, issued as delegated legislation under Rule 57A, could be rescinded under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and the prospective withdrawal was not shown to be manifestly arbitrary. The substantive challenge therefore failed, while the credit-reversal letter was left to be pursued before the appellate authority with limitation relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44164