https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778977 The HC held that a unit already granted excise exemption as a new industrial unit under Clause 5(a) of Notification No. 20/2007-CE could not claim a second exemption period under Clause 5(b) on the basis of substantial expansion. It reasoned that the notification created two distinct categories-new units and existing units that expanded by at least 25% of fixed capital investment-and a unit that had already been treated as new could not later be reclassified as existing for further benefit. The Court applied strict construction of exemption notifications and rejected reliance on promissory estoppel because the policy benefit had already been fully availed. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778977 The HC held that a unit already granted excise exemption as a new industrial unit under Clause 5(a) of Notification No. 20/2007-CE could not claim a second exemption period under Clause 5(b) on the basis of substantial expansion. It reasoned that the notification created two distinct categories-new units and existing units that expanded by at least 25% of fixed capital investment-and a unit that had already been treated as new could not later be reclassified as existing for further benefit. The Court applied strict construction of exemption notifications and rejected reliance on promissory estoppel because the policy benefit had already been fully availed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778977