1996 (12) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT

Notification dated 16-10-1980 being Notification No. 205/T-No. 355/141/80-Cus. I. (hereinafter referred to as "Notification No. 205") issued in supersession of an earlier Notification dated 15-3-1979 being Notification No. 66 Cus., dated 15-3-1979 G.S.R.hereinafter referred to as "Notification No. 66" challenged

Held that:- 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 the PVC resin without the exemption (sic) as that would have been "unviable" & "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 of the economic situation explained in the judgment of Kasinka [1994 (10) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] have not been controverted. Nor is it alleged by the appellants that public interest did not call for supersession of the Notification No. 66.

Once public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the principle should be applicable even in cases where a period has been indicated. The Government is competent to 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. However, in the present case, there is a supervening public interest and hence it shouId not be mandatory for the Government to give a notice before withdrawing the exemption. Appeal dismissed.