Jurispruden tiol - Recent SC Judgements
WE bring you the highlights of some recent Supreme Court judgements - now that there is an exclusive tax bench several old cases are being decided.
Central Excise - Valuation - Reduction in contract price after clearance - Since duty has been paid on the basis of the original price in the purchase order, the difference between the said rate and the reduced rate has to be refunded.
You have an agreement to sell your products at a particular price. After clearances, if for some reason the price is revised upwards retrospectively and the buyer pays you the differential price, you are required to pay duty and interest from the day when the consignment was originally cleared, even if you get the differential price two years later.
What happens if the price is reduced retrospectively? The Department will not give you a refund. It is always heads they win and tails you lose, as it happened in this case too.
The Supreme Court has now ordered refund with 9% interest from 2002 - for 13 years.
The Department should realise that rejecting a refund claim is not always a pro-revenue order
Please see HPL Socomac Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon-
Customs - Classification - Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Fluid (CAPD fluid) is medical equipment which attracts nil rate of custom duty.: Not only this position was conceded to by Departmental representative before the Tribunal, even otherwise the aforesaid item is specifically included as medical equipment in Chapter Heading 90. The Department seems to be in appeal before the Supreme Court on a simple classification issue which can be understood just by looking at the tariff entries. Further the issue was conceded by the Departmental representative before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court found the appeals devoid of any merits and dismissed them.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court added, The amount which was deposited by the respondent was not to be refunded.
Please see Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Vs Baxter(I) Pvt Ltd -
Central Excise - Exemption - supply of nutritious food (product) falling under sub-heading 1901.10 to the Government of Rajasthan under the World Food Programme project.
It is not in dispute that in terms of paras 9.10 and 9.26 of the Exim Policy when the food products are supplied to the weaker sections of the society free of cost, there is no excise duty payable thereon. The only requirement is that there has to be certificates produced from the concerned authorities that goods were in fact distributed free of cost to the weaker sections under the aforesaid programme which is duly approved by the State Government. Tribunal has taken note of and discussed those certificates in the impugned order and on the basis of which a finding of fact is arrived at that the assessee had in fact distributed the goods free of cost to the economically weaker sections of the society. In these circumstance, the respondent could not be fastened with any liability to pay the excise duty. Supreme Court dismissed theRevenue Appeal.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I Vs JVS Foods Pvt Ltd -
Central Excise - Valuation - cost of bought out items not to be added
- The Department wanted to add the value of Handle assembly, Ball valve assembly, overflow assembly, Syphon assembly, Outlet flange assembly and Flush pipe assembly, while arriving at the valuation of the flushing cisterns manufactured by the assessee.
It is an admitted position that the fittings are not manufactured by the assessee.
It is also an admitted position that the assessee supplied the same to only those buyers who asked for them and in such a situation the assessee buys the aforesaid components from the market and supply to the buyers at their option.
Tribunal has rightly declined to add the value of the aforesaid components which are not the part of flushing cistern manufactured by the assessee.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs Neycer India Ltd -
Customs - Project Imports - appeal - Tribunal remands the case to the Commissioner - revenue in appeal to Supreme Court against Tribunal order - Remand order confirmed - Appeal Dismissed.
The Supreme Court declined to decide the issue as it found that the Tribunal hasrightly remitted these issues back to the Commissioner fordecision. The Supreme Court directed the Commissioner to decide the issue as early as possible.
Please see Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai Vs Reliance Industries Ltd -
Central Excise - SSI Exemption - Surname of the Director, not a brand name of another person:
It is not in dispute that the assessee is an SSI unit. It was denied exemption from excise duty admissible under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 on the ground that it was using branded name of another person and therefore in terms of para 4 of the said Notification it was not entitled to the exemption. The finding of fact as recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment is that the assessee was not using the branded name of another person and the name used was the surname of the Director of the assessee, viz., 'PETHE'. This finding of fact clearly means that the case does not fall within the mischief of para 4 of the aforesaid Notification No.1/93.
The Revenue took this SSI unit to the Supreme Court for using the name of its director. And the case was in the Supreme Court for ten years.