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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more