Validity of government notification exempting stainless steel coils upheld, not discriminatory under Article 14.

The court upheld the validity of a government notification exempting hot rolled stainless steel coils exceeding 500 mm width for cold rolling, rejecting a challenge claiming discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court found the notification specific to a category of goods and not discriminatory, allowing all meeting conditions to benefit. Despite deficiencies in respondent materials, the court presumed the notification's constitutionality, emphasizing the government's conscious decision not to amend it. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the judgment to the Ministry of Finance to address defense lapses and prevent future issues.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to a government notification as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India regarding exemption of hot rolled stainless steel coils based on width classification.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in the manufacture of steel products, challenged a government notification issued on 15/01/1982, claiming it was discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The notification provided an exemption for hot rolled stainless steel coils with a width exceeding 500 mm when imported for cold rolling. The petitioners, importing coils with a width of 460 mm, argued that the width classification deprived them of the benefit. They contended that the classification was arbitrary and discriminatory, frustrating the purpose of the exemption.

The petitioners sought expansion of the beneficiary grant to include all importers of steel coils regardless of width. However, the court noted that the notification was specific to a certain category of goods and did not introduce discriminatory policy. The court upheld the validity of the notification, stating that all who met the conditions could benefit from the exemption. Despite deficiencies in presenting relevant materials by the respondents, the court found no discrimination in the notification and presumed its constitutionality.

The court distinguished previous cases where inadvertent omissions were remedied, emphasizing that in this instance, the government's refusal to amend the notification despite repeated representations indicated a conscious decision rather than an oversight. The court referenced Supreme Court decisions to support its conclusion that the notification did not violate principles of non-discrimination.

The court directed a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Ministry of Finance to address the defense lapses of the respondents and prevent future occurrences. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, denying the petitioner's request for a stay of the judgment.

---