Differential excise exemption rates for hot and cold rolled strips were upheld as valid under the tariff scheme and Article 14.

The tariff treated hot rolled strips and cold rolled strips as excisable goods, so the exemption-granting authority could lawfully prescribe different concessional duty rates for those categories under the delegated exemption power. That differentiation was held to fall within the scope of the tariff scheme and not to create a new classification beyond it. A constitutional challenge under Article 14 also failed because no material showed that the distinction was arbitrary or lacked a rational basis. The excise duty structure and differential exemption rates were therefore upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exemption-granting authority could lawfully prescribe different rates of excise duty for hot rolled strips and cold rolled strips under the tariff item and the exemption rule; (ii) Whether the differential rate of duty offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption-granting authority could lawfully prescribe different rates of excise duty for hot rolled strips and cold rolled strips under the tariff item and the exemption rule.

Analysis: The tariff item treated strips, including both hot rolled and cold rolled strips, as excisable goods. The exemption power under Rule 8(1) authorised the Central Government to exempt any excisable goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable on them. Since the tariff itself recognised both categories as excisable commodities, the fixation of different concessional rates did not amount to creating a new distinction beyond the tariff scheme.

Conclusion: The differential exemption was within the scope of the delegated power and was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential rate of duty offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A challenge based on discrimination required a showing that the classification between hot rolled strips and cold rolled strips was arbitrary. No material was placed to establish that the distinction lacked a rational basis or was constitutionally impermissible.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed and the levy did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, and the excise duty structure and exemption rates were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff itself recognises distinct excisable categories, the exempting authority may grant partial exemption at different rates for those categories, and such differentiation is valid unless shown to be arbitrary or constitutionally discriminatory.

---