https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42002 The proviso to Notification No. 193/81-C.E., and later similar provisos, was found to create an arbitrary and discriminatory classification among manufacturers of aluminium goods. By denying exemption to finished products unless the raw material had suffered duty under the same notification, it made identically situated manufacturers pay different effective duties despite the operation of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The classification lacked a rational basis and was not justified by any demonstrated policy objective, including hoarding control. The proviso was therefore unconstitutional and void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:10:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42002 The proviso to Notification No. 193/81-C.E., and later similar provisos, was found to create an arbitrary and discriminatory classification among manufacturers of aluminium goods. By denying exemption to finished products unless the raw material had suffered duty under the same notification, it made identically situated manufacturers pay different effective duties despite the operation of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The classification lacked a rational basis and was not justified by any demonstrated policy objective, including hoarding control. The proviso was therefore unconstitutional and void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42002