Quasi-judicial discretion cannot be fettered by administrative directions in excise classification disputes, and decisions based on them are vitiated.

Administrative directions cannot control the independent judgment of a quasi-judicial authority deciding a statutory excise classification dispute. The text states that the Collector and the Central Government were required to exercise their own judgment under the Act, and that reliance on a Board direction treating the issue as already decided fettered that discretion and tainted the proceedings. It further notes that an incorrect assumption about chemical examination could not support the orders, and that the matter could not be finally determined on the material then available. The operative principle is that quasi-judicial decision-making must remain impartial and free from extraneous executive instructions.

---

---

Issues: Whether directions issued by the Central Board of Revenue could control the quasi-judicial discretion of the Collector and the Central Government in classifying the goods for excise purposes, and whether the impugned orders were vitiated by reliance on such directions.

Analysis: The classification dispute was one that had to be decided by the statutory authorities on their own judgment. The appellate and revisional functions exercised under the Act were quasi-judicial in character, and such authorities could not be bound by administrative directions issued by a superior executive body. A direction purporting to decide the very issue in dispute would fetter independent adjudication and undermine the requirement of impartial decision-making. The record showed that the Collector and the Government treated the Board's direction as decisive, and the proceedings were therefore tainted. The Court also held that the incorrect assumption regarding chemical examination could not sustain the orders, and the matter could not be finally decided by this Court on the available material.

Conclusion: The Board's direction was invalid insofar as it controlled the quasi-judicial decision-making of the Collector and the Central Government, and the impugned orders were vitiated.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative instructions cannot control or fetter the independent judgment of a quasi-judicial authority deciding a statutory dispute; any decision founded on such extraneous direction is vitiated.

---