In Brief
The appellant imported compound alcoholic preparations under tariff sub-heading 2208.10 during 1993-95 and challenged the assessed customs duty. He claimed that Finance Minister's budget proposals, approved by Parliament, mandated a 85% duty rate for 1993-94 and 65% for 1994-95, but the authorities applied the rate of Rs. 300 per litre or 400%, whichever is higher. He also alleged discrimination, as the government had issued 85-94 notifications correcting tariff errors for other goods. The Supreme Court held that budget proposals, though reflecting government intent, are distinct from enacted law. Once Parliament legislates a duty rate in the Finance Act, it constitutes binding legislative will immune from judicial review. The Court rejected arguments about discrimination and classification, finding no material establishing that the goods fell within the same statutory class as notified goods with differential treatment lacking rational basis.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.