Binding exemption ruling on record players barred a selective excise demand against one manufacturer.

A subordinate excise authority could not sustain a central excise demand on record players where the competent higher authority had already ruled on identical facts that such goods were excisable as gramophones but covered by Notification No. 145/63-C.E. The Delhi High Court treated that earlier administrative determination as binding on subordinate authorities and noted that similar demands against other manufacturers had already been dropped. In those circumstances, the petitioner could not be singled out for adverse treatment, and the impugned demand was held unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty on record players could be sustained when similar demands had been dropped in identical cases and the Government of India had ruled that record players fell within the exemption under Notification No. 145/63-C.E. dated 31.08.1963.

Analysis: The demand was based on the view that record players were not covered by the exemption notification and was sought to be supported under Rule 9(2) and Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The earlier review order of the Ministry of Finance had, however, held that record players were excisable as gramophones under Tariff Item 37A and were also exempt under Notification No. 145/63-C.E. The Court treated that decision as binding on subordinate authorities and noted that demands against similarly placed manufacturers had already been dropped on that basis. In those circumstances, the petitioner could not be singled out for adverse treatment.

Conclusion: The demand against the petitioner was not sustainable and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the same relief as other identically placed manufacturers, and the impugned demand could not be enforced.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate excise authority cannot maintain a demand against one assessee when the competent higher authority has already ruled, on identical facts, that the goods are covered by the exemption and similar demands have been dropped.

---