https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44630 A fiscal concession under the excise regime, once granted by notification, can be withdrawn by the Government as a matter of policy. The text states that promissory estoppel did not apply because no binding assurance or reciprocal detriment was shown, so the withdrawal was not restrained on that ground. It further states that Article 14 was not violated because the concession was withdrawn for the class of aerated waters as a whole, without hostile discrimination or arbitrary classification. The operative point is that withdrawal of a notified fiscal benefit is valid absent enforceable assurance or unequal treatment. en-us Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:34:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44630 A fiscal concession under the excise regime, once granted by notification, can be withdrawn by the Government as a matter of policy. The text states that promissory estoppel did not apply because no binding assurance or reciprocal detriment was shown, so the withdrawal was not restrained on that ground. It further states that Article 14 was not violated because the concession was withdrawn for the class of aerated waters as a whole, without hostile discrimination or arbitrary classification. The operative point is that withdrawal of a notified fiscal benefit is valid absent enforceable assurance or unequal treatment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44630