Delegated instructions cannot demand 50% machine utilisation or justify continued sealing without statutory support.

Administrative instructions cannot impose a substantive condition requiring declaration of 50% machine utilisation or justify continued sealing of a running cigarette manufacturing unit and DG sets unless supported by the parent statute and rules. The High Court found no authority in the Central Excise or GST framework for keeping the machines sealed on that basis, and treated the later trade notice condition as unreasonable and beyond delegated power. It therefore quashed the refusal to de-seal the machines and DG sets. The connected challenge to appointment of a chartered engineer was rejected because the GST framework permits expert assistance for technical verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trade notice condition requiring a declaration of utilisation of at least 50% of machine hours and permitting continued sealing of the cigarette manufacturing machines and DG sets was valid in law and could justify refusal to de-seal them; (ii) Whether the department could rely on the trade notice and expert verification to keep the machines sealed and whether the connected challenge to appointment of a chartered engineer had merit.

Issue (i): Whether the trade notice condition requiring a declaration of utilisation of at least 50% of machine hours and permitting continued sealing of the cigarette manufacturing machines and DG sets was valid in law and could justify refusal to de-seal them.

Analysis: The sealing was treated as permissible only for the limited period contemplated by the applicable trade notice for non-working or partially working machines. The subsequent insistence on a fresh declaration and continued sealing was examined against the Central Excise framework and the GST framework. The Court held that the authorities were unable to point to any provision in the governing enactments or rules authorising the sealing of a running manufacturing unit or compelling utilisation of 50% of installed machine capacity as a condition for de-sealing. Executive instructions were held to be valid only if consistent with the parent statute and rules. The condition in the later trade notice was found to be unreasonable and beyond the authority conferred by the statute and rules, and the continued sealing after search and issuance of show cause notice was held unjustified.

Conclusion: The impugned trade notice condition and the refusal to de-seal the machines and DG sets were held invalid and unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the department could rely on the trade notice and expert verification to keep the machines sealed and whether the connected challenge to appointment of a chartered engineer had merit.

Analysis: The Court noted that the department had already carried out search and investigation and had sought expert assessment of machine capacity. As to the connected writ challenging the appointment of a chartered engineer, the Court held that the GST law permits assistance of an expert for technical opinion, and no separate ground survived for interference. The challenge was therefore found to be without substance.

Conclusion: The connected challenge to expert verification was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted relief against continued sealing of the machines and DG sets, quashed the impugned refusal, and declined interference with the expert-verification challenge in the connected matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative instructions under delegated power cannot impose substantive restrictions on business operations, such as continued sealing or a minimum utilisation threshold, unless supported by the parent statute or valid rules and consistent with them.

---