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

1983 Supreme(AP) 89

K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Nutrine Confectionery Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore – Respondent


JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W. P. No. 1445/1976.

( 2 ) THE appellant manufacturers and sells toffees, boiled sweets and other confectionery products. The question that arises in the appeal is whether lozenges fall under Item I-A (l) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) and attract the levy of excise duty.

( 3 ) THE appellant declared Lozenges as a non-excisable item in the classification list submitted to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore. The Assistant Collector did not accept the said contention of the appellant and passed orders accordingly on 17-3-1973.

( 4 ) ON appeal, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by his order dated 16-11-1973 rejected the appeal stating that the meaning of the word Candy includes Lozenges and observing as follows :-"while admitting that the term boiled sweets utilised in the tariff description does not cover Lozenges notwithstanding that Lozenges form a distinct category, I hold that the term candy which is international usage covers various other categories such as hard candy, coa





















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top