Supreme Court Round Up - recent cases

By Vijay Kumar

Central Excise - appeals - a total mindless exercise on the part of the Revenue in filing such an appeal which is misuse and abuse of the process of law:

In this case, the Supreme Court had affirmed the order of the CESTAT in favour of the assessee. The Department not only accepted this view but also issued a Circular in 2001 to that effect. In 2006, the Department filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on the same issue. The Supreme Court observed that it was a total mindless exercise on the part of the Revenue in filing such an appeal which is misuse and abuse of the process of law. But who pays for this mindless abuse? The citizen and the assessee. The officers who decided to file this appeal must have got a couple of promotions and the lawyers on both sides must have got decent fees.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Vs RDC Concrete (India) Ltd - 2015-TIOL-245-SC-CX.

Central Excise - EOUs - Exemption for Goods manufactured with indigenous raw materials - Catalysts are not raw materials:

Goods cleared to DTA by EOUs are allowed a concessional rate if the if the goods are produced or manufactured only from the raw material produced or manufactured in India. In this case, the assessee had used an imported catalyst and the Supreme Court held that catalysts are not raw materials.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs IG Petrochemical Ltd -2015-TIOL-246-SC-CX.

Central Excise - Condition of exemption notification that duty has to be paid in cash/PLA not fulfilled - Benefit of exemption denied: Exemption Notification - Benefit of doubt should be in favour of Department:

Supreme Court held that it is trite that exemption notifications are to be construed strictly and even if there is any doubt same is to be given in favour of the Department.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondichery Vs Honda Seil Products Ltd - 2015-TIOL-247-SC-CX.

Central Excise - Valuation - additional consideration not to be added?:

At the time of clearance the duty was paid on the price charged. Some additional amount is received thereafter, on account of price escalation. However, it is not coming on record as to under what circumstances such price escalation was given. No such case was set up by the Revenue that the price was understated or depressed at the time of clearance of the goods and the additional amount was received subsequently, by a suspicious kind of arrangement.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs Hitkari Fibres Ltd - 2015-TIOL-248-SC-CX.

Central Excise - Classification - end use of the said product at the hands of the purchaser cannot be the consideration for classifying the goods:

Insofar as the assessee is concerned, it is undertaking the work of printing alone and is supplying to those who place orders in this behalf. The end use of the product at the hands of the purchaser is not the concern of the assessee and cannot be the consideration for classifying the goods in question. It is the respondent which is to be assessed under the Central Excise Act and it has to pay the excise duty on the manufacturing process undertaken by it.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Gopsons Papers Ltd - 2015-TIOL-243-SC-CX.

Central Excise - Classification - Limitation:

By no stretch of imagination, the appellant can be treated as a person who had misled the authorities or made any mis-statement / mis-declaration. The appeal is allowed on this ground itself without going into the issue of classification.

Please see Caprihans India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat - 2015-TIOL-244-SC-CX.