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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more