JUDGMENT U. L. BHAT, C.J. - This is a reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, read with section 13 of the Entry Tax Act, 1976, made by the Board of Revenue at the instance of the assessee. The following questions have been referred : "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that entry of plant and machinery effected by the applicant M/s. Straw Products Ltd., Bhopal, during the period 1st May, 1976 to 31st August, 1976 was exigible to entry tax ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply to this case ?" 2. The assessee is a manufacturer and seller of straw-board at Bhopal. The period under assessment is from 1st May, 1976 to 31st August, 1976 from 1st September, 1976 to 30th September, 1976 and 1st October, 1976 to 31st December, 1976. During these three periods, the assessee effected entry of plant and machinery of the value of Rs. 79,76,885 into local area of Bhopal. Accordingly entry tax was levied by the assessing officer overruling the objection of the assessee that entry tax was not leviable on plant and machinery. The order was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the Board of Revenue which ultimately made the reference. 3. Plant and machinery are included in Schedule III to the Entry Tax Act. Entry of goods specified in Schedule III could be exigible to entry tax only under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 which, as the provision stood at the relevant time, read as follows : "Section 3 : Incidence of taxation. 3. Plant and machinery are included in Schedule III to the Entry Tax Act. Entry of goods specified in Schedule III could be exigible to entry tax only under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 which, as the provision stood at the relevant time, read as follows : "Section 3 : Incidence of taxation. - (1) There shall be levied an entry tax - (a) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein; and (b) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III, into each local area for consumption or use of such goods as raw material or incidental goods or as packing material or in the execution of works contracts but not for sale therein, and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act who has effected entry of such goods." 4. Plant and machinery were purchased and brought to Bhopal for installation in the assessee's existing factory at Bhopal in which straw-board was being manufactured. The Revenue never had a contention that plant and machinery brought into Bhopal were for use as raw material or as packing material or in execution of works contract. The undisputed fact is that the plant and machinery of which entry was caused to be made into the local area, were brought for installation of the factory and for manufacture of straw-board. If entry of plant and machinery is caused to be made not for use as raw material or packing material brought under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act entry tax is not attracted. The same view has been taken by this Court in M.C.C. No. 81 of 1986 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Bhagat Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills). We, therefore, hold that the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that entry of plant and machinery into local area for the purpose of erection in the factory invited levy of entry tax. We are not concerned in this case with the position as it obtained after the amendment introduced by the amending Act No. 24 of 1982, with effect from 6th May, 1982. 5. We are not concerned in this case with the position as it obtained after the amendment introduced by the amending Act No. 24 of 1982, with effect from 6th May, 1982. 5. The next question which arises relates to the principle of promissory estoppel. Reliance for this purpose is placed on exemption notification dated 17th April, 1971 issued by the District Level Committee appointed by the State Government granting exemption to the assessee from payment of octroi on import of plant and machinery, raw material and building materials for a period of 5 years till 14th January, 1978, provided these materials were required for the expanded capacity. Assuming that the contention is satisfied in the instant case, it can only be said that there is exemption regarding payment of octroi. Octroi and entry tax may have similarly in their incidences, but they cannot be said to be the same since the law under which they are impossible are different and the conditions under which they can be imposed are also different. Since what is purported to be imposed is not octroi, but entry tax, the principle of promissory estoppel will not apply. 6. In the result, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 7. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Board of Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.