UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 19-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
     M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES
(Civil Appeal No. 7432 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Doctrines – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – When cannot
be invoked – Appellant vide notification dated 09.09.2003,
exempted certain goods from the payment of excise duty – By
notification dated. 25.04.2007, earlier notifications issued were
amended with the result that pan masala, tobacco, manufactured
tobacco substitutes and plastic carry bags of less than 20 microns
were no longer entitled for exemption from the excise duty–
Respondent in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.36926 of
2012, approached the High Court of Sikkim by way of Writ Petition
– Allowed – Respondent in the Civil Appeal Nos.2345 and 2346 of
2017, approached the High Court of Gauhati – Writ Petition
dismissed by Single Judge vide order dated. 10.12.2010 – Writ
appeals allowed – Held: Exemption granted, even when the
notification granting exemption prescribes a particular period till
which it is available, can be withdrawn by the State, if it is found
that such withdrawal is in the public interest– Larger public interest
would outweigh the individual interest, if any – In such case, even
the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not come to the rescue of
the persons claiming exemptions and compel the State not to resile
from its promise, if the act of the State is found to be in public interest
– Scientific research conducted by Experts in the field has found
that the consumption of pan masala with tobacco as well as pan
masala sans tobacco is hazardous to health – It was further found
that the percentage of teenagers consuming the hazardous product
was very high and as such exposing large chunk of young population
of the country to the risk of oral cancer – Taking into consideration
this aspect, if the State has decided to withdraw the exemption
granted for manufacture of such products, it is not understood as
to how it can be said to be not in the public interest – Withdrawal of
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 270
270
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 270
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
the exemption to the pan masala with tobacco and pan masala sans
tobacco is in the larger public interest – Doctrine of promissory
estoppel could not have been invoked in the present matter –
Judgments passed by the High Court of Sikkim and Appellate Bench
of the Gauhati High Court set aside – Order passed by Single Judge
dated. 10.12.2010 upheld – Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.5A –
Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act,
1957 – s.3 – Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles)
Act, 1978 – s.3(3) – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – CENVAT
Credit Rules, 2002 – Finance Act, 2003 – s.154 – Excise Duty.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1 The issue raised in these appeals is no more
res integra. The exemption granted, even when the notification
granting exemption prescribes a particular period till which it is
available, can be withdrawn by the State, if it is found that such a
withdrawal is in the public interest. In such a case, the larger
public interest would outweigh the individual interest, if any. In
such a case, even the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not
come to the rescue of the persons claiming exemptions and
compel the State not to resile from its promise, if the act of the
State is found to be in public interest. [Paras 12, 19 and 25][279-
F; 283-E; 285-G-H]
1.2 A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that by various
scientific studies on betel quid and substitutes, tobacco and their
substitutes, i.e., pan masala with tobacco and without tobacco,
these products have been found to be one of the main causes for
oral cancer. By a scientific research conducted by Experts in the
field, it has been found that the consumption of pan masala with
tobacco as well as pan masala sans tobacco is hazardous to health.
It has further been found that, the percentage of teenagers
consuming the hazardous product was very high and as such
exposing a large chunk of young population of this Country to
the risk of oral cancer. Taking into consideration this aspect, if
the State has decided to withdraw the exemption granted for
manufacture of such products, it cannot be understood as to how
it can be said to be not in the public interest. [Paras 26, 31]
[285-A; 290-D-E]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.