Court orders equal treatment, grants exemption, discharges Bank Guarantee, allows verification, and disposes of appeals.

The Court found in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for equal treatment under the law. It directed the respondents to grant the petitioners the same benefit as another importer received under a specific exemption letter. The Court ordered the petitioners to pay customs duty based on the granted exemption, discharged the Bank Guarantee for any differential duty amount, and allowed the respondents to verify and claim any shortfall. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and the civil appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Exemption from customs duty on stainless steel strips.
2. Differential treatment in granting exemptions.
3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitioners imported stainless steel strips and were initially cleared for home consumption with exemption from customs duty. However, they later received notices to show cause why they should not be charged duty at an unexempted rate due to the width of the strips exceeding the permitted limit under the exemption Notification No. 256-Cus./76.

2. Subsequently, a new exemption Notification No. 27/77 was issued, providing an exemption for stainless steel strips exceeding specific dimensions. The petitioners requested retrospective application of this exemption but were refused on the grounds that exemptions cannot have a retrospective effect.

3. The petitioners argued that the Central Board's refusal to grant them the same relief as another importer, who had been granted an exemption in similar circumstances, was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

4. The petitioners filed a writ petition along with appeals against the Tribunal's order, seeking relief and claiming that the differential treatment by the Board was unjust and against constitutional provisions.

5. The Court noted the absence of a counter affidavit from the respondents and emphasized the necessity of filing one. Despite multiple opportunities, no counter affidavit was filed, and the respondents failed to justify the differential treatment.

6. The Court acknowledged the lack of justification for treating the petitioners differently from the other importer and criticized the respondents for not providing reasons for the disparate treatment.

7. In the absence of any stated exceptional circumstances or public interest justifying the differential treatment, the Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioners the same benefit as the other importer received under a specific exemption letter.

8. The Court ordered that the petitioners should pay the customs duty based on the granted exemption and allowed the respondents to verify and claim any shortfall, if applicable. The Bank Guarantee for the differential duty amount was discharged.

9. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs, and the civil appeals were disposed of accordingly.

10. The Court emphasized equal treatment under the law and directed the respondents to provide the same benefit to the petitioners as granted to the other importer in similar circumstances.

---