Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 327 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT100% EOU - cement plant with units both in India and Bangladesh - doctrine of promissory estoppel - revenue appeal - initially board has given LOP in favor of assessee - assessee made investment in crores with regard to long conveyor belt - writ petitioner has taken the plea that the withdrawal of duty free import facility in respect of long conveyor belt and the appellants are bound of doctrine of promissory estoppel. - learned single Judge has quashed the the decision of withdrawing the exemption granted earlier to the writ petitioner vide Board Resolution dated 31-5-2004 from payment of import duty. Held that:- On behalf of the appellants, it is argued that since the writ petitioner (assessee) had made misrepresentation as such the appellants were justified in changing their decision and withdrawing the facility. We agree with the principle that in case of misrepresentation, decision can be withdrawn but having gone through the entire record on the evidence discussed as above, we do not find any misrepresentation made by the writ petitioner. No doubt, area of warehouse was mentioned in the licence dated 25-5-2004 of the writ petitioner as 100 hectares for limestone mining area, and 7.6 hectares of land for crushing area. But the project report submitted in July, 2002 with application for licence clearly shows that the writ petitioner had mentioned in para 18 that it proposes to install the long belt conveyor from the mine site to the cement plant at Chhatak in Bangladesh to transport crushed limestone. Summary capital cost of 977 millions which is also part of the project discloses the amount to be spent on long belt conveyor facility. As such it cannot be said that the writ petitioner had concealed any fact from the appellants. The principle contained in above cases cannot be made applicable to the cases where two different companies registered in two different countries have established their units dependant on each other. In our view the ground on which this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed is that the learned single Judge has rightly applied doctrine of promissory estoppel against the appellants, particularly when there was no misrepresentation made by the writ petitioner. - Decided against the revenue.
|