Import fee on beer lacked statutory authority and violated trade equality by discriminating against imported goods.

The Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was analysed to determine whether it authorised a separate import fee on beer. The Act was found to permit only excise duty and countervailing duty, and the power to regulate imports under Section 58 did not extend to imposing an additional fee, so the levy was without authority of law. The notification was also held discriminatory because imported beer faced a higher burden than similar locally manufactured goods, which offended Articles 301 and 304(a). The governing principle applied was that countervailing duties may only equalise the burden on imported goods with the excise burden on comparable local goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the import fee levied on beer under the impugned notification was authorised by the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and whether it violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of trade and the non-discrimination mandate under Articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 16, 31, 32, 34 and 58 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was examined to determine whether it conferred power to levy an import fee apart from excise duty and countervailing duty. The Court found that the Act authorised only excise duty and countervailing duty, and that the power to regulate import under Section 58 did not include power to impose a separate fee. The levy was therefore held to be without authority of law. The constitutional challenge was also upheld because imported beer was subjected to a higher burden than similar locally manufactured goods, creating discrimination against interstate trade. The Court applied the principle that countervailing duties are meant only to equalise the burden on imported goods with the excise burden on locally manufactured similar goods, and that any tax or fee that creates an economic barrier or unfavourable bias offends Article 304(a).

Conclusion: The impugned import fee was unauthorised under the Act and unconstitutional as discriminatory under Articles 301 and 304(a).

---