https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165211 The Court upheld excise-rule amendments in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh as valid exercises of delegated regulatory power in the liquor trade. In Karnataka, a distributor licence confined to a State-owned or State-controlled company, with manufacturers required to route sales through that distributor, was held to fall within the Act and not to infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), because liquor trade has no fundamental right and the policy was not shown to be manifestly arbitrary. In Andhra Pradesh, enhanced or newly introduced label-approval fees were held within the rule-making power and not invalid for want of quid pro quo, as such charges operate as consideration for the privilege granted. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Mar 2025 16:51:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165211 The Court upheld excise-rule amendments in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh as valid exercises of delegated regulatory power in the liquor trade. In Karnataka, a distributor licence confined to a State-owned or State-controlled company, with manufacturers required to route sales through that distributor, was held to fall within the Act and not to infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), because liquor trade has no fundamental right and the policy was not shown to be manifestly arbitrary. In Andhra Pradesh, enhanced or newly introduced label-approval fees were held within the rule-making power and not invalid for want of quid pro quo, as such charges operate as consideration for the privilege granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165211