Statutory commission lacked power to impose exclusive supply and marketing conditions on a cottage unit certificate.

A statutory commission cannot, without express authority, compel a cottage unit to route its entire production through it or restrict marketing through labels and rates fixed by the commission as a condition for retaining a bona fide cottage unit certificate. The power to impose conditions affecting an excise concession lies with the competent rule-making authority under the governing excise notification, not with the commission acting on its own. A notice and circular imposing exclusive supply and marketing requirements were therefore beyond power and invalid, though the relief was confined to the relevant financial period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to impose, as a condition for retaining a bona fide cottage unit certificate, a requirement that the entire production of matches be supplied through the Commission and marketed only under labels and rates fixed by it. (ii) Whether the impugned notice circular directing such compulsory supply and exclusive marketing was valid and enforceable.

Issue (i): Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to impose, as a condition for retaining a bona fide cottage unit certificate, a requirement that the entire production of matches be supplied through the Commission and marketed only under labels and rates fixed by it.

Analysis: The certificate issued by the Commission was only a basis for availing the excise concession contemplated by the Central excise notification. The power to prescribe conditions for the concessional rate, including conditions intended to prevent misuse of the exemption, lay with the Central Government under the relevant excise notification issued under the rule-making power, not with the Commission acting on its own. The Commission's statutory functions under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 did not confer authority to compel sale of the entire production through itself as a condition for issuing or retaining the certificate.

Conclusion: The Commission had no jurisdiction to impose the condition, and the purported requirement was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notice circular directing such compulsory supply and exclusive marketing was valid and enforceable.

Analysis: The impugned communication sought to alter the terms on which the petitioners could continue to enjoy the bona fide certificate by compelling exclusive supply of the whole production to the Commission. Since no enabling provision or lawful authority justified that restriction, the notice and the circular were beyond power and could not stand. The Court also made clear that the relief operated only for the relevant financial period and did not extend beyond 31 March 1980.

Conclusion: The notice and the circular were quashed as invalid.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners succeeded in challenging the Commission's attempt to impose exclusive supply and marketing conditions, and the impugned administrative directions were set aside for the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory commission cannot, in the absence of express authority, impose conditions altering the scope of an excise exemption or certificate; such conditions, if permissible, must be imposed by the competent rule-making authority under the governing fiscal notification.

---