Exemption notification conditions must be applied as framed; no estoppel arises from a legal concession made below.

A concession that a controversy is covered by an earlier decision does not create an estoppel in appeal, and a party may still challenge the legal position because there can be no concession against law. The exemption notification for imported H.D.P.E. goods was held to apply only where the plastic material was manufactured from duty-paid raw naphtha or a derived chemical, and that condition was treated as a valid part of the scheme to avoid double duty on domestic manufacture. The Court refused to rewrite the notification or delete the condition merely because an importer could not satisfy it; the Article 14 challenge failed and the exemption was denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were bound by the statement made before the Single Judge that the controversy stood concluded by an earlier decision. (ii) Whether the exemption notification applied to the imported H.D.P.E. goods and whether the condition requiring duty-paid raw naphtha was arbitrary or violative of Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were bound by the statement made before the Single Judge that the controversy stood concluded by an earlier decision.

Analysis: A statement that a controversy is covered by an earlier decision is only a concession on a point of law for the purpose of disposal and does not create an estoppel against challenging the correctness of that legal position in appeal. There can be no concession against law, and an erroneous admission on a legal issue cannot prevent a party from contesting the order founded on it.

Conclusion: The appellants were not precluded from disputing the order on the basis of the earlier statement.

Issue (ii): Whether the exemption notification applied to the imported H.D.P.E. goods and whether the condition requiring duty-paid raw naphtha was arbitrary or violative of Article 14.

Analysis: The notification granted partial exemption only where the plastic material was manufactured from raw naphtha or a chemical derived therefrom on which excise duty had already been paid. That condition was treated as a valid part of the exemption scheme intended to avoid double duty for domestic manufacture. The Court held that it could not rewrite the notification or delete the condition merely because an importer could not satisfy it. The condition was not shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory, and the challenge under Article 14 failed.

Conclusion: The imported goods did not qualify for the exemption, and the condition in the notification was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was dismissed, and the revenue's demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot rewrite an exemption notification or strike down a condition merely because an assessee cannot satisfy it; unless a condition is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or irrational, the exemption must be applied as framed.

---