JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 (Annexure D) may be quashed and in alternative, it is prayed that the said Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 may be held in contravention of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are thus : The petitioner is a Private Company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of aerated waters under the trade name of 'Thrill', 'Rush' 'Sprint' and 'McDowell soda' under the franchise agreement with M/s. McDowell & Company Ltd., Madras. The petitioner is a small scale industry and is registered as such with the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Bhopal, and as such, it is entitled to the concession available to the small scale industries under the various Central and State enactments. It is also getting subsidy from the State Government in its capacity as a small scale industry. This company manufactures the aforesaid brands of aerated water and is using carbon dioxide, water, essence, etc. as raw materials. The manufactured goods are sold in bottles in the open market and the goods are subjected to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1944'), under the tariffs laid down therein. It is also used to pay excise duty on raw material purchased by it. However, the duty paid on raw material consumed was used to be credited to the account of the petitioner. By Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 as amended from time to time, the Central Government exempted all the excisable goods on which the duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 of the then first Schedule to the said Act was used as raw material or component parts from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise already paid upon the said raw materials and components, upon the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979. Out of the aforesaid raw materials bottles and crowns, only synthetic essences fell under Item No. 68 of the then 1st Schedule of the Act. This Notification was rescinded on 1st March, 1986. Out of the aforesaid raw materials bottles and crowns, only synthetic essences fell under Item No. 68 of the then 1st Schedule of the Act. This Notification was rescinded on 1st March, 1986. On account of rescinding of this Notification, there is a cascading effect of excise duties upon the raw materials and components (known as 'input') in respect of the value of the final product. Therefore, in order to elaborate all such conditions, another Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 was issued and in that, it was held that certain exemptions were given to the small scale industries. Those exemption to the first clearance of the specified goods up to value of Rs. 50 lac and the concession of excise duty on subject having cleared not exceeding of Rs. 1 /2 crores in the preceding year. The explanation provided that for the purpose of this Notification where any specified goods are used for further manufactured by a manufacturer, are affixed with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another manufacturer or trader, such specified goods shall not, merely by reason of that fact, be deemed to have been manufactured by such another manufacturer or trader. By virtue of this, the petitioner was using the trade name of McDowell Company for manufacture of aerated waters and this was withdrawn subsequently by another Notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-1987 and it is clarified that the benefit which was given to such small scale industry, who was using the branded name, will not be available to them. In case, it was not available to the original manufacturer whose franchise, the petitioner was enjoying and using their branded name. It is this Notification which is being sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this petition as the principal ground of the promissory estoppel and it is being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. A reply has been filed by the respondent and the respondents have taken a position that there is no question of promissory estoppel involved in this case as certain a concessions were given by the Government under the Act. Since it was a concession only given by the Government and the concession has been withdrawn that does not amount to operate as a promissory estoppel against the Government. Since it was a concession only given by the Government and the concession has been withdrawn that does not amount to operate as a promissory estoppel against the Government. It was essentially a concession and that concession has been withdrawn and in such withdrawal of the concession, no promissory estoppel can operate against the Government as the Government has not promised them anything in lieu of such benefit and as such there is no question of promissory estoppel involved in the present case. Likewise, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution for the reasons that all the persons who are entitled to this benefit, were a class and that concession has been withdrawn from the holder of that class. Therefore, there is no question of discrimination between the same. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention the decisions of various High Courts given in Goa Bottling Co. P. Ltd. and Anr. v. U.O.I. and Ors. decided by Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 246/87, dated 25-4-1988; Black Diamond Beverages Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1988 (36) E.L.T. 225 (Cal.) and Delhi Bottling Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I., decided by Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 3032/87, dated 30-10-1987. In all these cases, some what similar question regarding grant of benefit of Modvat was revoked and the same argument was raised that the State Government is stopped by virtue of the principle of Promissory Estoppel and that has been overruled. Similarly, we have also taken the same view in identical matter (M.P. No. 3426/87 Indore Bottling Co. v. U.O.I. and Ors., decided on 19-6-1996). Hence we are of the opinion that there is no question of promissory estoppel involved in this case nor any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. No order as to costs.