Excessive delegation and Article 14 challenge fails where excise exemption merely adjusts duty already paid on inputs.

A challenge to sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on excessive delegation was rejected because the Supreme Court had already upheld the rule's validity. The exemption notification was also held not to offend Article 14, as its proviso merely adjusted the exemption by taking account of duty already paid on ingots and did not create a hostile or additional burden on similarly placed manufacturers. The impugned demand and notification were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was invalid on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power; (ii) Whether the proviso to the impugned exemption notification was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was invalid on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power.

Analysis: The challenge to the rule failed because the Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of the rule and had expressly held that it did not suffer from excessive delegation. In view of that binding pronouncement, no separate infirmity in the rule could be accepted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the vires of sub-rule (1) of rule 8 was rejected and the rule was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to the impugned exemption notification was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The notification was construed as granting exemption and not imposing an additional burden. The proviso merely adjusted the duty by taking into account duty already paid on ingots and clubbed the duty on ingots with the duty on flats manufactured from those ingots. Since the arrangement did not add to the duty burden and only altered the extent of exemption, it did not amount to hostile discrimination between similarly placed manufacturers.

Conclusion: The proviso to the notification was not discriminatory and did not violate Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in entirety, and the impugned demand and notification were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification granting excise exemption is not discriminatory merely because it varies the extent of relief by adjusting duty already paid at an earlier stage, and a rule previously upheld as valid cannot be struck down again on the ground of excessive delegation.

---