LexSHRI JEE SALES CORPORATION AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SHRI JEE SALES CORPORATION AND ANOTHER B v. UNION OF INDIA DECEMBER 20, 1996 (A.M. AHMADI, CJ., N.P. SINGH AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] I I Customs Act, 1962: Section 25(1)/Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Chapter 39, First Schedule-Import of Polyvinyl Chloride resins-Levy of Customs C duty exempted vide Notification 661 upto 31.3.1981-Subsequent Notification withdrawing exemption from payment of Customs duty issued on 16.10.1980-Wliether principle of promissory estoppel applicable against the Government-Held, applicable only if there is no supervening public inter- est-But Court must satisfy itself that such public interest exists. D The Government vide Notification No. 66 Cus. dated 15.3.1979 G.S.R. gave exemption to imports of polyvinyl Chloride resins (PVC ) from. the duty of customs leviable thereon upto 31.3.81. The appellant on the faith of this solemn assurance given by the Government entered into an arran- gement for the import of PVC resin· as an actual user with the U .P. Export E Corporation and opened Letters of Credit against the foreign suppliers on 2.10.80 and the goods arrived at the port on 8.11.80. However, Notification withdrawing the exemption from payment of customs duty was issued on 16.10.80. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the notification withdrawing the exemption which was dismissed by the High Court. F In appeal to this Court, the appellants alleged that they imported the PVC resin on the assurance that there would be no customs duty imposed upon it and that but for this exemption, they would not have imported the PVC resin as that would have been uneconomical. It was, therefore, contended that the Government should be estopped from G withdrawing the benefit of Notification No. 66. It was also contended that the judgement in Kasinka Trading is not correct. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The determination of applicability of promi'ssory es top- H pel against the public authority/Government hinges upon balance of equity 888 J SHRIJEE SALES CORPN. v. U.O.I. 889 or 'public interest' and that it is the Court which has to determine whether A the Government should be held exempt from the liability of the "promise" or "representation". [896-H; 895-A-B] 1.2. The principle of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government but in case there is a supervening public equity, the Govern- ment would be allowed to change its stand; it would then be able to B withdraw from representation made by it which induced persons to take certain steps which may have gone adverse to the interest of such persons on account of such withdrawal. However, the court must satisfy itself that such a public interest exists. [894-A-B] M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, [1979) 2 SCR 641, relied on. Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. & Anr. v. Government of India & Ors., (1986) 23 E.C.T. 87 Delhi, referred to. Emmanuel Ayodji v. Bri~coe, (1964) All E.R. 556, cited. c D 2.1. The appellants in the present case have not disclosed any facts which could show the existence of better equity in their favour. All that they have alleged is that they would not have imported PVC resin without E the exemption as that would have been "unviable" and "uneconomical" and further that many persons took full advantage of the exemption; moreover the exemption accorded preferential treatment to some persons, but not to the appellants. The facts pf the economic situation explained in the judgment in Kasinka Trading have not been controverted. Nor is it alleged by the appellants that public interest did not call for supersession of the Notification No. 66. [896-D-F] 2.2. Once the public interest is accepted as the superior equity which F can override individual equity, the principle should be applicable even in case where a period has been indicated. The Government is competent to G resile from a promise even if there is no manifest public interest involved, provided, of course, no one is put in any adverse situation which cannot be rectified. [896-H; 897-H] • Modi/al Padampat Sugar Mills v. GO! & Ors., [1979) 2 SCR 641, relied on. H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP.10 S.C.R. A Kasinka Trading & Anr. Etc. v. Union of India & Anr., JT (1994) 7 SC 362, referred to. Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v. B1iscoe, (1964) 3 All E.R. 556, referred to. 3. In the present case, there is a supervening p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.