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

1985 Supreme(SC) 212

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and another etc., Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 338-349 of 1983 etc. etc., D/- 11-6-1985.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. N. Bajoria, Soli J, Sorabji, Anil B. Dewan, Gobind Dass, A. K. Sen and L. R. Gupta, Sr. Advoctes and M/s. S. K. Bagaria, Kamal Persuram Puria, A. M. Shah, V. N. Deshpande, E. C. Agrawala, R. Sathish, Vijay Pandita, Prakash Mittal, Madan Sharma, Ravinder Narain, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji, Talat Ansari, D. N. Mishra, Harish Salve, Miss Rainuwalia, Ashok, Gupta, P. H. Parekh, D. K. Chhaya, Miss Nisha Srivastava, J. P. Devadhar, Aruneshwar Gupta, Birj Bhushan, S. P. Mangla, Rajesh Gupta, J. N. Agarwal, P. D. Sharma, P. K. Mukherjee, A. S. Pundir, N. D. Garg, P. K. Aggarwal. V. K. Varma, S. Srinivasan, Sushil Kumar Jain, M. K. D. Namboodiry, R. C. Pathak, Mrs. Rani, Chhabra, Mrs. Shobha Dixit, A. T. M. Sampath, K. J. John, Shri Narain, J. N. Aggarwal, B. P. Maheswari, Miss Halida Khatun, R. S. Suri, S. K. Dholakia, Altaf Ahmad, G. D. Rawal, Shyam Moorjani, Kalish Vasdev, C. S. Vaidyanathan, D. D. Sharma, B. Parthasarthi, S. S. Shroff, Mrs. Pallavi Shiraf, D. P. Mohanty, S. A. Shroff, Subhash Parekh, A. K. Sanghi, Kamal Persuram Puria, S. N. Parekh, Vijay Pandita, Madan Sharma, R. D. Upadhya, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Janendra Lal, B. R. Agrwala, Miss V. Menon, A. K. Goel, M. M. Abdul Khadar, Sr. Advocate, K. Dileep, M. A. Feroz, Advocates with them for Appellants. Mr. K. Parasarn, Sol. General, M. K. Banerjee, Addl. Sol. General, A. K. Ganguli, K. Swamy, R. N. Poddar, C. V. Subbarao, Suraj Udai Singh and Miss Halida Khatun, Advocates for Respondents. 1214
Mr. Anil B. Dewan, Sr. Advocate, Abhay M. Shah, V. N. Deshpande, E. C. Aggarwala and V. K. Pandita, Advocates for the Intereveners (Inravandan Gokuldas Mehta).

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.K.GOHIL, A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.M.SHAH, A.S.PUNDIR, A.T.M.SAMPATH, ABHAY M.SHAH, Altaf Ahmed, Anil B.Divan, ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, ASHOK GUPTA, B.C.AGRAWAL, B.P.MAHESHVARI, B.PARTHASARTHY, BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.D.SHARMA, D.K.AGRAWAL, D.K.CHHAYA, D.N.Mishra, D.P.MOHANTY, E.C.AGARWAL, G.D.RAVAL, GOBIND DAS, HALIDA KHATUN, HARISH N.SLAVE, HEMANTIKA VATII, J.N.AGARWAL, J.P.DEVADHAR, JANENDRA LAL, K.DILIP KUMAR, K.J.JOHN, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, K.SWAMY, KAILASH VASUDEV, Kamal Parsurampuria, L.R.GUPTA, M.A.Firoz, M.K.BANERJI, M.K.D.NAMBUDIRY, M.M.ABDUL KHADER, MADAN SHARMA, N.D.GARG, NISHA SRIVASTAV, O.C.MATHUR, P.D.SHARMA, P.H.Parekh, P.K.MUKHERJI, Pallavi S.Shroff, PRAKASH MITTAL, R.AGGARWALALA, R.C.PATHAK, R.D.UPADHYAY, R.N.BAJORIA, R.N.Poddar, R.S.Suri, R.SATISH, RAINU VALIA, RAJESH GUPTA, RANI CHHABRA, Ravindra Narayan, S.A.SHROFF, S.K.Bagga, S.K.DHOLAKIA, S.N.Parekh, S.P.MONGIA, S.S.SHROFF, S.SRINIVASA VARMA, SHOBHA DIXIT, Shyam Mudaliari, SOLI J.SORABJI, SUBHASH PAREK, SURAJ UDAI SINGH, SUSHIL JAIN, Talat Ansari, V.K.PANDITA, V.K.VARMA, V.MENON, V.N.DESHPANDE, VIJAY PANDIT

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 248 - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 2(15), 25, 12(1), 12 - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 2, 3(1), 3(5) - Income Tax Act - Section 4 - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 – Section 3, 2(d), 3(1) - Orissa Mining Fund Act - Bihar and Orissa Excise Act - Kerala Luxury Tax on Tobacco Act - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act - Partnership Firm - Importing Brass Scrap - Liable to Pay Duty of Customs - Imposition of Excise Duty - Two appellants therein are respectively Messers Eastern Engineers, a partnership firm carrying on business and a partner of that firm - Appellant carries on business, inter alia, of importing brass scrap from other countries - Its contention is that additional duty of customs, which is in nature of countervailing duty, cannot be levied on brass scrap because, such scrap which consists of damaged brass articles like taps and pipes, is not "manufactured" in India (or elsewhere), as indeed it cannot be - Second contention of appellant is that it is liable to pay duty of customs on brass scrap at rate of 40 only and not at the rate of 80 because, brass scrap is a master alloy. The rate of customs duty payable depends upon which of the two Notifications, granting exemption from payment of customs duty, is applicable - Whether on such article, duty is leviable under, sub-sec. (1) or not - Whether brass scrap can come into being during process of manufacture - Whether appellants are liable to pay excise duty on brass scrap at rate of 40 per cent or at rate of 60 (sic) per cent - Whether brass scrap is comprehended within expression copper waste and scrap - Whether item copper waste and scrap under Heading includes brass scrap - Whether, third item copper waste and scrap includes brass scrap - Whether imposition of excise duty on waste and scrap, which is referred to in clause (1b) of Entry 26A of First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 – Held, Brass scrap imported by appellants falls under Exemption Notification and not under Exemption Notification - Reason is twofold : one, that within, meaning of Heading of First Schedule to Tariff Act, 1975, brass scrap is not a Master alloy; and two, that it is comprehended within expression copper waste and scrap in that Heading - Appellants are, therefore, entitled to exemption from duty of customs to extent of 20 only and not to extent of 60 - (9) Clause (1b) of Entry 26A of First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is not ultra vires S. 3(1) of that Act - Reason is that waste and scrap referred to in that Entry is excisable to duty if it is produced or manufactured in India - Waste and scrap are by-products of process of manufacture and are inevitably incidental to manufacturing process - (10) said Entry, namely, Entry 26A(1b) of First Schedule to Act of 1944 is within legislative competence of Parliament because duty of excise is attracted under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, only if goods are produced or manufactured in India - Impugned. provision falls within Entry 84, List I, of Seventh Schedule to Constitution - Even otherwise, Parliament would have legislative competence to pass law because of combined operation of Art. 248 and Entry 97, List I of Seventh Schedule - Petitions dismissed.

Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- This is a group of Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arising out of a judgment dated October 19, 1982 delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in a batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Those Writ Petitions having been dismissed by the High Court, the Writ-petitioners have filed these Appeals and Special Leave Petitions.

2. The facts of the various writ petitions naturally vary from case to case but, such variation has no bearing on the points which arise for our decision. We will mention the, facts of Civil Appeals Nos. 27-33 of 1983 as a representative batch of cases. The. two appellants therein are respectively Messers Eastern Engineers, a partnership firm carrying on business at Goregaon, Bombay, and a partner of that firm. For the sake of convenience, we will proceed on the basis that the real appellant is the firm. The appellant carries on the business, inter alia, of importing brass scrap from other countries. Its contention is that the additional duty of customs, which is in the nature of countervailing duty, cannot be levied on brass scrap because, such scrap which consists of damaged brass articles like taps and pipes, is not "manufactured" in India (or elsewhere), as indeed it cannot be. The second contention of the appellant is that it is liable to pay duty of customs on the brass scrap at the rate of 40 only and not at the rate of 80 because, brass scrap is a master alloy. The rate of customs duty payable depends upon which of the two Notifications, granting exemption from payment of customs duty, is applicable. These contentions are based on the following provisions of law.

3. Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962 defines "duty" to mean a duty of customs leviable under the Act. Chapter V of the Act contains provisions for the levy of, and exemption from, customs duties. By Section 12(1) of the Act, "Except as otherwise provided in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force", duties of customs shall be levied. at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under any other law for the time being in force, on goods imported into or exported from India. Section 25 of the Customs Act, which deals with the power of the Central Government to grant exemption from the payment of Customs duty, provides by sub-section (1) that, if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by a notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified, goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of the duty of customs leviable thereon.

4. Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 says that the rates at which duties of customs shall be levied under the Customs Act, 1962 are specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Tariff Act. S. 3 of the Tariff Act deals with the levy of "additional duty equal to excise duty". Sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 and the Explanation to that section which are relevant for our purpose, read thus

"Levy of additional. duty equal to excise duty. (1) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition be liable to a duty (hereafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which. the imported article shall be so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article.

Explanation - In this section the expression "the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India" means the excise duty for the time being in force which would be leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India or, if a like article is not so produced or manufactured which would be l
































































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