TAXATION LAWS II

CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY

1. Bata India v. CCE

Mere theoretical possibility of marketability is not sufficient.

2. Bohr Industries

Mere mention in CETA is not enough. Not dutiable if the article is not known to the market.

3. TCS v. AP

Canned softwares are goods.

Good may be tangible or intangible one. It would become good provide it has the following
characteristics:

1. Utility
2. Marketability
3. Capable of being transferred, delivered, stored and possessed.

4. Grasim Industries v. UoI

Waster or scrap arising from repairs or maintenance of machinery is not dutiable under excise
as it is neither by-product of the final product nor subsidiary product. No manufacture.

5. UoI v. Ahmedanad Electricity Co. Ltd.

Manufacturing process involves treatment, labour or manipulation.

I requires a deliberate skilful manipulation of the inputs or the raw material.

6. Kone Elevator P. Ltd. v. TN

Assembly at site not manufacture, if immovable product emerges. The test is whether
annexation to Earth is with the object of permanent beneficial enjoyment of land and building.

Supply and installation of lift is a work contract. It is not sale; it is not manufacturing process.

7. Triveni Engineering v. CCE

Assembly is manufacture only if machinery can be removed without disassembly.

Turnkey projects are not dutiable, but individual component/ machinery will be dutiable. If
marketable.
 8. Malwa Industries case

Vanaspati ghee was being manufactured as a by-product but it has to be treated before it was
fot for sale.

No tax because in this form it is not taxable.

9. UoI v. Delhi Cloth Mills

Taxability is determined on basis of marketability and mobility.

10. South Bihar Sugar Mills v. UoI

Articles must be movable.

11. Union Carbide India v. UoI

Goods in crude form are not taxable as they are in their intermediate form and not final
products.

12. CCE v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise

Marketability: Known in market and capable of being sold.

Captive Consumption

13. Reliance Case

Electricity produced and captively consumed. Pay taxes. Principle of fairness.

14. Movie Laminate case

Mere mention in CETA is not sufficient to make a good exciseable. There should be ae
specified for the same.

15. Hyderabad Asbestos Ltd. v. UoI

Manufacture and production are synonymous. Same tests to be applied.

16. Air Liquid North India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE

Deemed Manufacture = Filling of Helium in cylinders for household consumption.

17. Citabul Ltd. v. UoI

Brand Owner & Job worker. If they act on principal to principal basis, then BO is not
manufacturer.
 18. Ujjagar Paints v. UoI

Shirts manufacturer and the Job Worker is involved in dyeing.

CLASSIFICATION

19. CCE v. Dabur India Ltd. Ltd. (Lal Tel)

Massaging oil and not a medicament.

20. Baidyanath Ayurveda Bhawan v. CCE (Lal Dantmanjan)

Toothpaste and not a medicament.

21. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra v. CCE

Hair oil and not a medicament.

22. CCE v. KWH Heliplastics

Classification depends upon purpose, description and use of the product.

23. CCE v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.

Cheetos v. Kurlure edible food and not roasted products

24. CCE v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd.

A surgical scrub for cleaning surgical equipment is a medicament and not a detergent because
it is used in small quantities and not used as general household item.

25. CCE v. MM Khambahola

Masala puri of Amla, Bhringraj and other herbs.

VALUATION

26. UoI v. Century Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Validity of Tariff Value [Sec. 3(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944]

27. Indica Laboratories v. CCE

 28. Goa Bottling Co. v. CCE

2 MRPs Pay on higher one.

29. HR Johnson v. CBEC

2 different MRPs for different areas then each such RSP shall be the RSP for the purpose of
valuation.

30. CCE v. Himalaya Drug Co.

Free item no tax.

31. CCE v. Mackson Confectionary

Was selling very less quantity in terms of weight.

Since it was being sold in bulk/wholesale, transactional value will be applicable and not MRP
based valuation.

32. Jayanti Food Processing Ltd. v. CCE

Manufacturer of ice-creams asked to give chocolates with them for free in a hotel. They applied
transactional value menthod but revenue asked for MRP based valuation.

Court held that:

1. Since chocolate is for free, no MRP is required on that.

2. Since they are being provided in bulk, no application of MRP based valuation.
3. For MRP based valuation, mention in Legal Metrology Act is necessary and not just
CETA.

33. Electrolux and Kelvinator case

Refrigerator supply to bottling companies. No MRP based valuation if institutional customer

is there.

34. Jet Airways case

Supply of water bottles (large packets) to the airway company for its internal usage.

MRP v. TV

35. Escorts JCB v. CCE

Since it was an ex-works sale, the freight charges were not included in the assessable vakue.
 36. CCE v. Roofit Industries

Determine the place of sale.

Cost borne by the buyer is not to be included.

37. CCE v. Paru Internationals

Cost borne by a third party was added.

38. CCE v. Bombay Tyre International

Outward handling (operations to be performed on outgoing goods from a production unit)

39. GKN Drive Shafts v. CCE

Manufacturing original and spare parts. Paying tax on samne assessable value.

Since the time and place of removal is different different assessable value.

CUSTOMS

40. Kiran Shipping Mills

41. Apar Industries case

42. Garden Silk Mills

Taxable event of Imported goods: cross custom barrier

43. Associated Cement Co v. CC

If the rate of tax is nil, then the goods are not dutiable.

This case is custom equivalent of Bohr Industries case of excisability.

44. Indian Airlines v. CC

Fuel left in the airplane. Whether it would amount to import?