Back
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
V. S. Products A Proprietary Firm Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava S/o Sitaram Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance – Respondent
ORDER :
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J
This Order has been divided into the following Sections to facilitate analysis:
| I | Preamble | 13 |
| II | Contentions of Petitioners | 15 |
| III | Contentions of Respondents | 24 |
| IV | Consideration : A. Power under Article 246 r/w Entry 84 list I post, the GST Regime and Introduction of Article 246A of the Constitution of India B. Taxing of taxable event, Aspect Theory and Subsumation of manufacture in Supply (i) Subsumation of manufacture in the Concept of Supply ii) Taxing of Taxable event (iii) Aspect Theory C. Legality of levy of NCCD as per Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 D. NCCD as a surcharge and Article 271 E. Levy of NCCD during the period of Exemption of Excise Duty F. Levy of basic excise duty and NCCD is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India | 30 |
PREAMBLE
1. The petitioners are stated to be manufacturers of Tobacco and Tobacco products and are registered in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Registration Rules, 2002 (“the Rules, 2002” for short). Subsequen
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or similar language suggesting negative treatment in subsequent case law or judicial treatment patterns. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no case is identified as bad law.
[Followed or positively treated cases:]
Kesoram Industries And Cotton Mills VS Commissioner Of Wealth Tax (Central) , Calcutta - 1965 0 Supreme(SC) 318: The case discusses the timing of income tax liability, emphasizing the date when the liability arises and when the Finance Act becomes operative. No indication of negative treatment or overruling.
SRD NUTRIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI - 2017 8 Supreme 238: The case clarifies the refundability of excise duty and surcharge/cess, and the rule that in taxing statutes, the view favoring the assessee should be adopted when two views are possible. This suggests a well-reasoned interpretation, with no indication of being overruled.
Union of India VS Mohit Mineral Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 968: The case upholds the validity of the Compensation to States Act, 2017, and discusses constitutional competence and legality, indicating a strong judicial stance without subsequent negative treatment.
South India Corporation Private VS Secretary, Board Of Revenue, Trivandrum - 1963 0 Supreme(SC) 192: The case discusses the continuity of pre-Constitution laws made by competent authorities, with no indication that this ruling has been questioned or overruled.
Cantonment Board, Poona VS Western India Theatres Ltd - 1953 0 Supreme(Bom) 15: While this case discusses the court's interpretation of 'entertainments' and related legal principles, there is no information provided about subsequent treatment or whether it has been overruled or criticized. The description appears to be a summary of the decision without indication of negative treatment or subsequent judicial disapproval. Thus, its treatment remains uncertain.
Unicorn Industries VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1327: The case deals with exemption interpretation, the binding nature of circulars, and the importance of binding precedents. Without further context, it is unclear if this ruling has been questioned or overruled in later decisions, making its treatment uncertain.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
