UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHAKRA TYRES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWING the writ petition filed by the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent is a public limited company and was incorporated on 2-6-1982. Its main object being to manufacture tyres and tubes for automobiles and other rubber products. THE Central Government with a view to promote industrial growth in this country granted certain tax concession under Central Excises and Salt Act 1 of 1944 to new industries which commenced production. We are concerned in this case with the Notification Nos. 268/82, 88/84 and 159/85.

(3.) MR. Jothi, the learned counsel for the appellants raises the following contentions: (1) The company was started even in June 1982 whereas the notification was only made in November 1982. So, no question of promissory estoppel will arise. (2) The Notification issued under the Rules under the central Excises and Salt Act is a delegated legislation and as such there cannot be a promissory estoppel against the exercise of the legislative power. In short, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the notification has been issued under Rule 8 which has been framed under Section 37 of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and as such the notification itself has to be taken as one issued under legislative power. The learned counsel referred the decisions injit Ramv. Haryana 1980 AIR (SC) 1285, 1981 (1) SCC 11, 1980 (3)SCR 689) andbansal Exportsv. Union of India (1987 E. L. T. Vol. 30, p. 361) for this proposition. Based on these decisions, the learned counsel for appellants contends that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be pleaded against the legislature and that the delegated legislation is not some form of inferior legislation and is equivalent to an Act of Parliament and as such the respondent cannot plead doctrine of Promissory estoppel on the facts of this case.