Jurisprudentiol- Recent Supreme Court Judgements
Central Excise - Classification - Lean Gas: natural gas after extraction of LPG, remains natural gas and, therefore, lean gas is also to be classifiable under sub-heading 2711.21 and entitled to the exemption under Notification No.179/85. The CESTAT decision in
2002-TIOL-123-CESTAT-DEL approved. The issue in question was as to whether Lean Gas is exigible to excise duty. According to the appellant ONGC, lean gas is nothing but natural gas and therefore attracts 'nil' duty. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal and so ONGC is in appeal before the Supreme Court. In fact CESTAT had in another case 2002-TIOL-123-CESTAT-DEL held that lean gas is nothing but natural gas and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue appeal. So, the Supreme Court once again confirmed that the appellant is right in contending that Lean Gas is in fact natural gas and therefore would attract nil duty.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs Gas Authority of India Ltd -
Central Excise - Classification - security holograms
- The appellant manufactures security holograms. At the very beginning of the manufacturing process, they use coated metallised film which is classified under Tariff entry 39.20.36 after which the said film is embossed. Post embossing, there is adhesive coating and release coating which results in a hologram which ultimately is cut to size and utilised by customers of the appellant for security purposes. In the show cause notice dated 04.02.2000, the Department sought to classify the security hologram under Tariff entry 39.19 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant disputed this and stated that, in fact, the holograms ought to be classified under Tariff entry 49.01. The Commissioner, Central Excise, by an order dated 01.01.2002 agreed with the Department's classification and classified the said goods under Tariff entry 39.19. An appeal to the CESTAT by the appellant was dismissed. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2003, agreed with the Commissioner.
The Supreme Court did not; it allowed the appeal and observed, "The security hologram part of the product in question is primary and the self adhesive part only incidental insofar as the user of the said goods is concerned."
Please see Holostick India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida -
Central Excise - Classification - blended marble vinyl flooring
- The respondent is a manufacturer of blended marble vinyl flooring which comes under the chapter 68 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 Act under sub-heading No. 6807. The order of the Assistant commissioner shows that in the test conducted by the Department the percentage of plastic (PVC) which was found was as low as 13.3% while the content of limestone was as high as 84.9%. It has also come on record that the plastic was primarily used as a binder. Even after noticing these facts, the only consideration which weighed with the Assistant Commissioner was that the main characteristics of the material was plastic. It is here where the Assistant Commissioner fell in error, which error is rightly corrected by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Supreme Court reiterated that the onus lies on the Department to show that the goods were to be classified under sub-heading 3918.10, which onus the Department has failed to discharge.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs Inarco Ltd -
Central Excise - EOU - Clearance to DTA
: - the duty of excise has to be the amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, on like goods produced or manufactured outside India - Valuation has to be as per the Customs Act - the sale price charged to customer in India of the goods under assessment cannot be considered as a price in the course of International trade.
The Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Commissioner who shall decide as to which Rule of the Valuation Rules, 1988 shall be applicable.