SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 1137

2001(6) Supreme 241
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal)
S. Rajendra Babu & Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut -Appellant
versus
M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4942-4943 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4900-4902/99, 5639/99, 5149/99, 5642/99, 5071/99, 5398- 5402/99, 5422/99, 5949/99, 5943- 5945/99, 6304-6308/99, 6309-6316/99, 5857/99, 6297-6303/99, 6486-6491/99, 6438-6455/99, 6808-6819/99,          160-161/2000
Decided on 21-8-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Soli, J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr. B.D. Agarwal, Mr. D.A. Dave, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Nisha Bagchi, Mr. K. Swami, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. Vinay Garg, Ms. Meera Mathur, Mr. Shri Narain, Mr. Sandeep Narain, Ms. Anjali, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Ramesh Singh, Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran and Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The view taken by Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal that the administrative charge under Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 is in the nature of a "tax" and, therefore, stands excluded from the definition of "assessable value" as provided under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is correct in law and needs no interference in appeal by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:Central Excise Act, 1944-Section 4(4)(d)(ii)-Assessable value a defined under-Computation-Duties on excise, sales tax and "other taxes" if any payable has to be excluded from the assessable value-Administrative charges levied under Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964-Whether deductable from said assessable value under the head "other taxes"?-Tribunal holding yes-Appeal against-Whether Tribunal is right? (Yes)-Appeals dismissed-[Constitution of India-Article 366-Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964-Sections 5 and 8(4)]-Case law referred.

       Held : Under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act what is to be excluded from the assessable value is the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and "other taxes". Taxes, as such, are not defined in the Central Excise Act. If the expression "tax" is to be understood in the absence of any definition, it would certainly cover any levy. In D.G. Ghose & Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 1980(2) SCC 410, broad meaning had been given to the expression "tax". In such an event, administrative charges would be covered under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) as "other taxes" because it is a compulsory exaction made under an enactment and, therefore, a duty or impost and such impost must be held to be in the nature of a `tax covered by the aforesaid provisions. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order made by the Tribunal and, therefore, we affirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeals with costs to the represents a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each. (Paras 7 and 8)

       

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-In these appeals the Revenue is the appellant. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short the Act ) (U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1964), as amended by U.P. Act No. 15 of 1974 and No. 5 of 1986, is in force. The Act provides for the control of storage, gradation and price of molasses produced by sugar factories and the regulation of supply and distribution thereof in Uttar Pradesh. Section 8(4) of the Act provides that the occupier of a sugar factory shall be liable to pay to the State Government administrative charges at such rate, not exceeding five rupees per quintal as the State may from time to time notify, on the molasses sold or supplied by him. Section 5 of the Act enables the occupier to recover from the person to whom the molasses is sold or supplied an amount equivalent to the amount of administrative charges in addition to the price of molasses.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by his order held that the administrative charges collected by the State Government under Section 8(4) of the Act is to be included in the assessable value of molasses cleared by the respondents. An appeal was carried against that order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the administrative charges collected by the State Government under the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act is a type of impost and such impost is in the nature of a tax as defined under Article 366 of the Constitution and, on that basis, he held that the administrative charges paid by the respondents is not liable to be included in the assessable value as defined under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) wherein it is contended, as has been done before us now, that under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act only duties on excise, sales tax and "other taxes", if any payable, are to be excluded from the assessable value and administrative charges levied under the Act cannot be equated with "other taxes". The Tribunal held that in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act assessable value in relation to excisable goods will not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and "other taxes" payable on such goods. If the expression "tax" is understood in the widest sense it would include all money raised by taxation including taxes levied by the Union and State Legislatures and rates and other charged levied by local authorities under statutory powers. It is not disputed before the Tribunal that the administrative charges at the rate of Rupees 5 per quintal on molasses sold or supplied by the respondents to the State Government is a levy made under the statute passed by the State Legislature. In view of the wide interpretation to be given to the expression "tax", the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Following this decision several cases have been disposed of and they are all in appeal before us.

3. In Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC1, it is observed :

"In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equality about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used."

4. The learned Attorney General projecting the aforesaid view submitted that fiscal measures are built upon theory of taxation; that the clear effect of the expression in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) is to exclude only taxes and no other matters; that what is enumerated in the said provisions are only "taxes" and no other charges which are not taxes; that the administrative charges are not taxes and are not payable on goods but recovered from the occupier and this position becomes clear if look at provisions of Section 8(5) of the Ac






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top