https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44192 In an advance licence scheme, filing an application did not create a vested right to have the licence issued under the value addition norm then in force; the governing norm was the one applicable on the date of grant. Promissory estoppel could not freeze the earlier norm because the scheme contained no assurance that the application-date norm would apply, and no sufficient factual basis was shown for the doctrine. Alleged delay by the licensing authority also did not displace the revised norm, as no deliberate or undue delay was proved. The challenge to the revised value addition requirement therefore failed. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44192 In an advance licence scheme, filing an application did not create a vested right to have the licence issued under the value addition norm then in force; the governing norm was the one applicable on the date of grant. Promissory estoppel could not freeze the earlier norm because the scheme contained no assurance that the application-date norm would apply, and no sufficient factual basis was shown for the doctrine. Alleged delay by the licensing authority also did not displace the revised norm, as no deliberate or undue delay was proved. The challenge to the revised value addition requirement therefore failed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44192