Section 11C notification power remains discretionary; mandamus cannot compel subordinate legislation or override executive policy choice.

Section 11C relief required a proved factual foundation of a generally prevalent non-levy practice, but the record did not establish such uniform practice with certainty; assessments of registered units and explanations based on SSI coverage, registration gaps, and limitation issues undermined the claim. The power to issue a notification under Section 11C was held to be enabling and discretionary, so satisfaction of the stated conditions did not itself create a mandatory duty. A writ of mandamus could not compel the Central Government to make subordinate legislation or replace a policy choice that was not shown to be irrational or arbitrary.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conditions for issuance of a notification under Section 11C were established on the facts; (ii) whether the power under Section 11C was coupled with a duty to issue the notification once the conditions were satisfied; (iii) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the Central Government to issue such a notification.

Issue (i): Whether the conditions for issuance of a notification under Section 11C were established on the facts.

Analysis: The alleged general practice of non-levy was not established with certainty. The record showed that registered units were being assessed and, in some cases, duty was demanded, while the alleged non-levy in respect of unregistered units was explained by SSI coverage, lack of registration, and limitation issues rather than a conscious and uniform practice of non-recovery. The departmental materials did not furnish clinching evidence of a generally prevalent practice within the meaning of Section 11C.

Conclusion: The requisite factual foundation for invoking Section 11C was not proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the power under Section 11C was coupled with a duty to issue the notification once the conditions were satisfied.

Analysis: Section 11C confers enabling power on the Central Government to issue a notification in appropriate cases. The decision whether to invoke that power depends upon policy considerations and the nature of subordinate legislation. The mere satisfaction of statutory conditions does not automatically convert the enabling power into a mandatory duty.

Conclusion: The power under Section 11C was discretionary and not compulsorily exercisable.

Issue (iii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the Central Government to issue such a notification.

Analysis: A court may compel performance of a public duty in administrative matters, but it cannot direct the making of subordinate legislation or substitute its view for that of the executive on matters of policy. The refusal to issue the notification was based on a considered policy that relief should not be granted when it would benefit only a few identified assessees, and such a decision was neither irrational nor arbitrary on the record.

Conclusion: No mandamus could be issued to require the Central Government to issue a notification under Section 11C.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the factual basis for Section 11C relief was not established and, in any event, the Court would not compel the Government to exercise its discretionary subordinate-legislative power by mandamus.

Ratio Decidendi: An enabling fiscal power to issue a notification under Section 11C does not become a mandatory duty merely because some statutory conditions are asserted to exist, and a court cannot compel the executive to make subordinate legislation or alter a policy decision through mandamus.

---