1989 (7) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....980 and all proceedings relating thereto and/or from demanding any basic duty of customs or any countervailing duty in excess of Rs. 2.37 P. per kg. on the viscose staple fibre imported by the petitioner Company as mentioned in and pursuant to the contracts in Annexure "D" prior to December 31, 1980. 2. It is stated that the Notifications dated 5th January, 1979 as amended by Notification dated October 30, 1979 clearly stated that the exemption granted thereunder would remain in force upto and inclusive of December 31,1980. Representations were made by the Government of India fully knowing that the importers of viscose staple fibre including the petitioner No. 1 would be acting thereupon and it is alleged that in fact, the petitioner No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... made without indicating the provisions under which it is made, the order would be deemed to have been made under that provision of the Statute. In that case, the question of exemption to new industries from sales tax and other tax for five years were considered. The attention of the Court has been drawn to another case reported in 65 S.T.C. 430 (State of Bihar and Anr. v. Usha Martin Industries Ltd.). Following the decision of Pournami Oil Mills (Supra) and (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.) reported in 44 STC 42, it was found in that case that the Sales Tax Authorities were bound to give exemption on the basis of the resolutions and the respondents were entitled to incentives in terms of the resolutions. 4. Looking to anot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion was given the Government did take into account that such an exemption was necessary, they must place such material on record as to convince the Court as to why such exemption was detrimental in public interest. 6. In that context another decision was cited from the Bar in support of the petitioners as reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 40 (Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) wherein also the question of estoppel and in particular promissory estoppel was considered in the proper perspective. The duration of the Notification granting certain benefits and the impact of the withdrawal of such Notification by another and the impact thereof were considered. In course of the said decision, it was observed that there is no reason ....