LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT versus M/S. KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT
A
V.
M/S. KI SAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS LTD.
AUGUST 21, 2001
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] B
Excise
Central Excise Act, 1944-Section 4(4) (d) (iij-Uttar Pradesh Sheera
Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964-Section 8(4) and (j)-Sugar Factories- C
•
Administrative charges on molasses sold or supplied-Levy of-Held, not to
be included in the assessable value of molasses-Administrative charges would
come within the purview of "other taxes" and, therefore, excluded from
assessable value.
Words & Phrases :
"Tax"; "other taxes"-Meaning of in the context of section 4(4) (d) (ii)
of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
D
State of Uttar Pradesh levied administrative charges under Section 8(4) E
ofthe Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 on molasses sold or
supplied by occupier of Sugar Factories. Assistant Commissioner of Central
Excise held that the said administrative charges should be included in the
assessable value of molasses cleared by the respondents. However, on appeal,
the Commissio.ner {Appeals) held that administrative charges collected by the
State Government was a type of impost which was in the nature of a 'tax' F
and thus not liable to be included in the assessable value under Section 4(4)
(d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was also affirmed by Central
Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.
On behalf of the appellant-Revenue it was contended that Section 4(4)
(d) (ii) of the Act clearly stipulates that only "taxes" and no other charges G
which are not taxes can be excluded from the assessable value and
administrative charges being not a tax is liable to be included for the purpose
of ascertaining the assessable value .
. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
7
H
•
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
HELD: Under Section 4(4) (d) (ii) o(the Central Excise Act, 1944 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 1944 Act.
·~
If the expression "tax" is to be understood in the absence of any definition, it
would certainly cover any levy. In such an event, administrative charges would
B
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. 110-H; 11-A]
D.G. Ghose & Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd v. State of Kera/a and Anr., 11980) 2
c sec 410, relied on.
Cape Brandy Syndicate v. /RC, (1921) 1 KB 64, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4942-4943
of 1999.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.99 o(the Customs Excise and.
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal Nos. E/1581/96-A and
E/1628/95-A.
WITH
,.•/
E
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4900-4902/99, 5639/99, 5149/99, 5642/99, 5071/
99, 5398-5402/99, 5422/99, 5949199, 5943-5945/99, 6304-6308/99, 6309-
6316/99, 5857/99, 6297/99, 6309/99, 6486-6491/99, 6438-6455/99, 6808-
6819/99, 160-161/2000.
F
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Shanti Bhushan, B.D. Agarwal,
D.A. Dave, Nisha Bagchi, K. Swami, P. Parmeswaran, Vinay Garg, Ms.
Meera Mathur, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, Ms. Anjali, Rajesh Kumar,
Ramesh Singh, V. Lakshmikumaran and V. Balachandran for the appearing
parties.
~
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
H control of storage, gradation and price of molasses produced by sugar factories
C.C.E. v. KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS LTD. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]
9
and the regulation of supply and distribution thereof in Uttar Pradesh. Section A
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 B
an amount equivalent to the amount of administrative charges in addition toExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.