Chewing Tobacco Packed In High-Density Polyethylene Bags Are 'Wholesale Package'; Cannot Be Taxed As Retail Product Under Excise Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that pouches of chewing tobacco packed in High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bags would be considered a 'wholesale package' and could not be considered for imposing excise duty as per the provisions relating to retail sale price in the Central Excise Act, 1944.The bench of Justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal upheld the decision of the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal which observed that chewing tobacco in HDPEs qualified as wholesale packages as they were sold only...

Labelling and Re-Labelling of Containers Qualifies as 'Manufacture' for CENVAT Credit Under Excise Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that labelling or re-labelling of containers amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act for availing cenvat creditThe bench of Justices A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was pronouncing its judgment on an appeal by the revenue under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a 2015 order passed by the CESTAT, Mumbai.By the impugned order, CESTAT has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent holding that as per Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central...

Supreme Court Affirms Penalty On 'Zarda' Manufacturers For Misclassifying Product As 'Chewing Tobacco' For Central Excise Duty

The Supreme Court while adjudicating a matter wherein the Assesssee deliberately misclassified the ‘Zarda’ produced by it as ‘Chewing Tobacco’ for evading payment of a high duty as applicable to ‘Zarda’, has affirmed the imposition of penalty and demand for payment of differential duty raised by the Central Excise Department from the Assessee.The Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, has held that, “The assessee being aware that there being no change in the nature...

Self-Assessment Of Assessee Not Rendered Malafide Merely Because It Was Based On A CETSTAT View Which Was Later Overturned : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred.The court dismissed the contention that Reliance had deliberately suppressed and withheld material information and documents from the departmental officers by not filing the same and thus, the ground for invoking the extended period of...

Mere Broad-Basing Of Entries Under Central Excise Tariff Act, Cannot Justify Re-Classification, Without Change In Nature, Character Or Use Of The Product: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the classification of a product under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, cannot be changed merely on the ground of change of tax structure or tariff entries, without showing a change in the nature and character of a product or a change in the use of the product(Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad vs Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy).The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwar and Vikram Nath was dealing with an appeal against the decision of the...

Central Excise Act- No Separate Notice Necessary For Recovery Of Erroneous Refund Granted: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that no separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of an erroneous refund granted.The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that once the order originally sanctioning the refund came to be set aside, there was no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.The issue raised was whether the separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is...

Central Excise Act - To Be "Related Person", Buyer & Seller Must Have Direct Or Indirect Interest In Each Other’s Business : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while ascertaining who is the “Related Party” under the Central Excise Act for the purpose of valuation held that before the clause in Section 4(4)(c) could be used, the buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic.The division bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta referred to various precedents which explained that Section 4(4)(c) defines “related person”...

Only Retail Sale Can Claim Assessment Benefits Under Section 4A Of Central Excise Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible for central excise duty exemption, and what is required along with the affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP.The Division Bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has observed that where the purchaser institution is deemed to not be a consumer, the sale also cannot be held to be a retail sale as per the Act. Since the sale was not a retail sale, there is no...