1986 (2) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellants. Shri Vineet Ohri, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)].  - The appellants are aggrieved by the two demands for differential central excise duty served on them. The lower authorities have held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 in respect of the barley malt prepared by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he notification and this constituted promissory estoppel (Reliance on AIR 1979 SC 621-sales-tax case of M/s. Motilal Padamdat Sugar Mills). 3. Subsequently, the appellants placed on record a copy of the Delhi High Court judgment dated 11-7-1985 in Civil Writ No, 36 of 1981- M/s. Bar-malt (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others - in which the High Court has held that barley malt was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his Tribunal's Larger Bench Order No. 70/85-C, dated 25-1-1985 in NOCIL case, that the Assistant Collector, a lower functionary, was not empowered to hold out any promise which could attract the rule of promissory estoppel, that there could be no promise which was not in accordance with law. That for the past period the Appellate Collector had already given substantial relief to the appellants on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore us. We are also told that there is no contrary judgment of any other High Court on this product. In the circumstances, in keeping with the practice of this Tribunal, we are bound to follow the Delhi High Court judgment. It may be that the present appellants are not asking for full exemption. But in view of the Delhi High Court having declared the product fully free from duty, we are at a los....