https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275462 Amended excise rules imposing minimum monthly liquor-lifting requirements on CL-2 and CL-9 licensees were treated as procedurally valid where objections were invited and considered; separate formal rejection orders, Law Department consultation, and personal hearings were not mandatory. Trading in intoxicating liquor was treated as outside the protection of Article 19(1)(g), leaving the State broad power to regulate or prohibit the activity through licence conditions. The targeted classification of CL-2 and CL-9 licensees was considered consistent with Article 14 because those licensees dealt directly with consumers and the measure rationally addressed suspected clandestine sales, revenue leakage, and public interest. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:14:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275462 Amended excise rules imposing minimum monthly liquor-lifting requirements on CL-2 and CL-9 licensees were treated as procedurally valid where objections were invited and considered; separate formal rejection orders, Law Department consultation, and personal hearings were not mandatory. Trading in intoxicating liquor was treated as outside the protection of Article 19(1)(g), leaving the State broad power to regulate or prohibit the activity through licence conditions. The targeted classification of CL-2 and CL-9 licensees was considered consistent with Article 14 because those licensees dealt directly with consumers and the measure rationally addressed suspected clandestine sales, revenue leakage, and public interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275462