TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated:- 13-8-1996 - MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND VENKATASWAMI K. JJ. Ms. Binu Tamta for S.N. Terdol, Advocate, for the respondents. Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate (P. Bhushan, Advocate, with him), for the appellants. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by K. VENKATASWAI, J. -The short point that arises for our consideration is whether the principle of promissory estoppel applies to the facts of this case. The facts are as under: The appellants owned two sugar factories at Daurala and Mawana (Meerut) and at both these factories the business of manufacturing and selling of sugar by vacuum pan process was carried on. The Central Government promulgated the Sugar ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised scheme to provide incentives to the new sugar factories and expansion projects. This revised scheme came into effect from the sugar year 1980-81. At this juncture, it must be noted that the percentage of levy-free sugar announced in the 1975 scheme is higher than the percentage announced in the 1980 scheme. The new scheme of the year 1980 was made applicable even to those industries who were otherwise entitled to the benefit of the scheme announced in the year 1975. The appellants after completing the expansion projects at the two places on August 6, 1980 and August 13, 1980, applied for necessary eligibility certificate for additional free-sale sugar entitlements as per the incentives announced. The respondents allowed the incenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the year 1975 and, therefore, they cannot be denied on account of the decontrol of the sugar for a short period. In support of that argument, he placed heavy reliance on a judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 574 (SC); (1985) 4 SCC 369. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on the decontrol order, submitted that during the period when there was no control of sale of sugar by the producers, the producers were enabled to sell their hundred per cent of that production in the open market and the benefit flowing from such decontrol changed the whole complex and, therefore, the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that the Government cannot change t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government or public authority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it (vide [1986] 158 ITR 574 (SC); (1985) 4 SCC 369 (Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.). In this case we have found that the Government before refusing the incentive scheme of the year 1975 have taken into account various factors including the decontrol of sale of sugar for the period from August 16, 1978 to December 17, 1979. Further if the prayer of the appellants were to be allowed, several lakhs of quintals of sugar will have to be released as incentive levy-free sugar which otherwise meant for public distribution system. We agree with the learned Judges of the High Court when they observed that the "petitioners who availed of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
