Recent Supreme Court Judgements
CUSTOMS - Exemption to Spectacle lenses - No change due to change in Tariff to 8 digits: Spectacle lenses were attracting nil duty in the Central Excise Tariff till 2004. The Tariff Rate was fixed at 8% in 2004, but still exemption was given by a notification.8-digit tariff was introduced with effect from 28.02.2015, but this was not supposed to change any existing rates or exemptions. The department sought to collect tax on spectacle lenses which were earlier imported at nil rate. The Supreme Court held, "The adjudicating authority as well as the CESTAT have been influenced by the fact that the goods in question were re-classified as "semi-finished spectacle lenses" and on that basis it is held that since these were semi-finished spectacle lenses and not finished one, the benefit of exemption notification which is available only in the case of spectacle lenses, i.e., that is finished spectacle lenses, would not be available to the appellant herein. This approach of the authorities below was clearly erroneous. It is the power lenses which were imported by the appellant herein. They were treated as semi-finished only because of the reason that while fitting these lenses for a particular customer, i.e., before customizing according to the prescription, they were to be finished lenses. For the aforesaid reason, the goods could not be treated as "semi-finished" and it could be appropriately described as "to be finished spectacle lenses".
Please see Breaking News for more details.
COFEPOSA - Detention - No Detention order against a person who is already in jail and has not applied for bail: Under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, a person can be detained to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from-
(i) smuggling goods, or
(ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or
(iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or
(iv) dealing in, smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or
(v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods.
Thus, this is basically a preventive detention. The Government should be satisfied that the person is likely to engage in these activities. Now, can a detention order be passed against a person who is already in jail?
The Supreme Court held that only in those cases where there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody, action can be taken for detention of such a person by passing orders of preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act. Otherwise, there is no occasion and justification to pass such an order.
Please see PP Rukhiya Vs Joint Secy. Government -
Customs - Valuation - CESTAT passed the order on the ground that the issue was not raised before Commissioner, when in fact it was indeed raised. Matter remanded to CESTAT to consider the matter afresh: In 2008, the CESTAT passed an order dismissing the appeal of an assessee observing that an important point raised by the assessee was not raised before the Commissioner. Supreme Court finds that the issue had indeed been raised before the Commissioner. The matter is remanded to CESTAT.
Please see S12 Micro Systems Ltd Vs Commissioner -
Central Excise - Valuation - Cost of packing - The finding to the effect that the packing material which was used was durable and returnable by the buyer has come on record. On the basis of this finding the decision has been arrived at, which is the correct view in law. No merit in Revenue Appeal: Revenue is in appeal before the Supreme Court against the concurrent orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT. Supreme Court found no merit in the the appeal.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Vs SRF Ltd -
Central Excise - Classification - Part of boiler: The assessee had dispatched steel fabricated, structures for mounting the boilers and their accessories and treated these fabricated structures as a part of boiler and classified them under chapter heading 8402.90 attracting 13% E.D. Department wanted classification as steel structures falling under chapter 7308 attracting 15% E.D. The Supreme Court observed, "The Department itself has come out with the clarification that those structural components which are to be used as parts of Boiler System would be classifiable as parts of Boiler only under Heading 8402 of the Tariff. This clarification, thus, vindicates the stand which was taken by the assessee throughout by rightly classifying the parts of the boilers under Chapter sub heading 8402.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985."
Please see Swetha Engineering Ltd Vs Commissioner -