Skip to main content

Marketability of goods is an essential condition for levying of taxes

The bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and R.F. Nariman, JJ., dealt with three writs based on similar facts and observed that the marketability of the good in an essential condition for levying of taxes. The question before the Court was whether excise duty is payable on an intermediate product, namely, Transmission Assembly which comes into existence during the manufacture of tractors. Considering the definition of the term “goods” under Art. 366(12) of the Constitution which says that “goods” includes all materials, commodities and articles, it was held that although the definition of “goods” is an inclusive one, it is clear that materials, commodities and articles spoken of in the definition take colour from one another. In order to be “goods” it is clear that they should be known to the market as materials, commodities and articles that are capable of being sold.

In the present case, the respondents denied that no commercial identifiable Transmission Assembly emerges in their production of Tractors, however Commissioner Reports highlight that Transmission Assembly are well known in commercial world. Relying upon the report, the Court recognized that there was commercial knowledge of Transmission Assembly as a distinct product and taxes can be levied upon the same.

However, the Court also recognized the point that the word 'suppression' used in the Central Excise Act, 1944 is accompanied by fraud and illusion. Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts. There should be suppression of fact from the side of manufacturer or there should be any willful attempt to evade duty. The Court held that in the present case there was no attempt to evade evade as the assessee bonafide believed that the declaration of the chassis would suffice as according to them Transmission Assemblies were not taxable goods. [Escorts Ltd. v. Commission of Central Exercise, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 403 , decided on 29.04.2015]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/05/07/marketability-of-goods-is-an-essential-condition-for-levying-of-taxes.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil