https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92860 The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, having previously availed full excise exemption under Clause 5(a) as a new unit, cannot claim further exemption under Clause 5(b) for a subsequent substantial expansion within the ten-year period; an existing unit's expansion relief (triggered only for expansion of not less than 25% of fixed capital) is distinct from the full-investment benefit accorded to a new unit, and the two benefits cannot be compounded. The court rejected a promissory-estoppel plea, noting the petitioner received the notified benefit and that fiscal exemption notifications are to be strictly construed in favour of revenue; no interference was warranted. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92860 The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, having previously availed full excise exemption under Clause 5(a) as a new unit, cannot claim further exemption under Clause 5(b) for a subsequent substantial expansion within the ten-year period; an existing unit's expansion relief (triggered only for expansion of not less than 25% of fixed capital) is distinct from the full-investment benefit accorded to a new unit, and the two benefits cannot be compounded. The court rejected a promissory-estoppel plea, noting the petitioner received the notified benefit and that fiscal exemption notifications are to be strictly construed in favour of revenue; no interference was warranted. Highlights Central Excise Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92860