TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (12) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted in A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 1211 = 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.). 3. The three Notifications which are under challenge are (a) Notification No. 256 dated 16th November 1982. By this Notification the earlier Notifications bearing Nos. 97 and 156 are withdrawn, (b) Notification No. 252 dated 16th November 1982. By this Notification the duty leviable on copper waste and scrap was stated to be at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem, (c) Notification No. 254 dated 16th November 1982. By this Notification the exemption granted by an earlier Notification (i.e. No. 136 dated llth May 1982) from payment of auxiliary duty was withdrawn. 4. The challenge is to the withdrawal of exemption from payment of auxiliary duty on the basis of promisso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed as follows :- "23......In fact, promissory estoppel as the name itself would suggest that a promise, in whatever form it may be, is an essential element. In the present case, no promise whatsoever was made by the Government to keep the exemption granted by Notification No. 129 dated 1-7-1977 alive indefinitely or upto a certain point of time. Therefore, exemption could be at any point of time put an end to, that notification can be contrasted with another notification in respect of the same product bearing No. 390 and issued on 2-8-1976 in which it is specifically stated that the Notification would be in force upto and inclusive of the 31st March 1977. If in the Notification dated 1-7-1977 (No. 129) also there was any indicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itram v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1285 = 1980 (3) SCR 689. The same principle was applied in a Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Khandelwal Metal and Engg. v. Union of India, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 292 (Del.). In another decision of the same High Court, viz. Jain Shudh Vanaspati v. Union of India, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1688, this point was gone into in detail and it was held at follows: 'It is well settled that under the General Clauses Act an authority which has power to issue a notification has the undoubted power to rescind, modify the said notification in the like manner. .....The Central Government when issuing notification under Section 25(1) is not in any way violating the mandate of Parliament because in fact the power to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctrine of promissory estoppel is not available against the Legislature in exercise of its legislative function. 9. In the present case, the only ground taken out by the Petitioners for claiming promissory estoppel is that on 3rd November 1982 the Petitioners had entered into a High Seas Basis contract for purchase of these goods. That their seller had himself entered into a contract with a foreign buyer on 8th October 1982. It is submitted that these contracts were entered into on the footing that the exemption would be available. It is submitted that the Petitioners have acted to their detriment. In my view, this argument merely needs to be stated to be rejected. The fact that the Petitioners had entered into the contract cannot avail t....