Concessional excise duty on own manufacturing process upheld; unreasoned statutory rejection orders could not survive.

A concessional excise duty notification must be construed on its plain terms with reference to the assessee's own manufacturing process, not the processes by which inputs or intermediate goods were made by others. On that reading, use of soap stock did not deprive the petitioners of the reduced rate for soap manufactured without the aid of power or steam, and the lower duty benefit remained available. Separately, statutory rejection orders could not stand because they gave no reasons; an unreasoned appellate refusal is contrary to the rule of law. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to the reduced rate of excise duty under the notification dated 24 April 1962 on soap manufactured without the aid of power or steam, and whether the rejection orders of the excise authorities and the Central Government could stand without reasons.

Analysis: The notification had to be read by reference only to the manufacturing process carried on by the petitioners in producing the soap subjected to duty. Processes by which ingredients or soap stock were manufactured by other persons were outside its scope. On that interpretation, the use of soap stock did not deprive the petitioners of the benefit of the notification. Independently, the Central Government's orders were unsustainable because they contained no reasons, and unreasoned rejection of a statutory appeal offends the rule of law.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to the lower rate of duty under the notification dated 24 April 1962, and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption or concessional duty notification must be construed on its plain terms with reference to the assessee's own manufacturing process, and an unreasoned statutory appellate order cannot be sustained.

---