LexHINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 4 S.C.R. 250 HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Civil Appeal No.4003 of2007) SEPTEMBER 02, 2016 (A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act.1979- Schedule l,Ent,.Y 66, 80 - Classification - Exemption - Packing materials for tea whether can said to be raw material, components, or inputs used in the manufacture of tea - Claim by appellant-assessee, a tea manufacturing unit at Dharwad, for exemption from payment of entry tax on packing material of tea Jinder notification dated 31.3.1993-Held: Packing materials separately defined in Entry 66 and raw materials, component parts and inputs, used in the manufacture of an intermediate or finished product separately defined in Entry 80 - When raw materials, component parts and inputs are spoken of obviously they refer to materials, components and things which go into the finished product, namely, tea in the present case, and cannot be extended to cover packing materials of tea which is separately provided for by Entry 66 -Assesseenot entitled from exemption from Entry tax - Notification dated 31. 3.1993 issued u/s.JJA - Notification dated 23.9.1998 issued uls.3. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When raw materials, component parts and inputs are spoken of, obviously they refer to materials, components and things which go into the finished product, namely, tea in the present case, and cannot be extended to cover packing materials of the said tea which is separately provided for by the said Entry 66. [Para 9] (261-B-C] 2. The notification dated 23.9.1998 issued under Section 3 uses identical language as that contained in Entries 66 and 80 of Schedule I to the Entry Tax Act. Equally, notification dated 31.3.1993 is an exemption notification issued under Section llA which also uses the identical language of Entry 80 of Schedule I. This being the case, it is clear that neither notification can be read to include "packing material" as "raw materials, component 250 HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA parts or inputs used in the manufacture" of tea. [Para 10][261-C- D) Escorts Limited v. CCE (2015) 9 SCC 109: 2015 (5) SCR 241; Nestle India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka decided on 22.3.2006 by Karnataka High Court - referred to. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. 15 STC 240; Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 109 STC 265;Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO) v. State of Bihar (1994) 6 SCC 479: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 410; J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. S.T.O. (1965) 1 SCR 900:Mls. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut(l989) 4 SCC 724: 1989 (3) SCR 892; CCE v. Mis. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. (1989) 4 SCC 244: 1989 (3) SCR 1017; CCE v. Ballmpur Industries Limited (1989) 4 SCC 566: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR341;H.MM Ltd. v. CCE (1994) 6 sec 594: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 13 ; Mis. J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur (1965) 1 SCR 900 - distinguished. Case Law Reference 2015 (5) SCR 241 referred to Paras 15 STC 240 distinguished Para 15 109 STC 265 distinguished Para 16 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 410 distinguished Para 17 1965 (1) SCR 900 distinguished Para 17 1989 (3) SCR 892 distinguished Para 18 1989 (3) SCR 1017 distinguished Para 19 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 341 distinguished Para 19 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 13 distinguished Para 19 251 A B c D E F 1965 (1) SCR 900 distinguished Para 20 G ~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4003 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2006 of the High Court ofKamataka in Civil Revision Petition No. 1207 of2004, Civil Revision Petition No. 1208 of2004 and Civil Revision Petition No. 1209 of2004. H 252 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R. K?vin Gulati, Sr. Adv., R. N. Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Suman· Yadav, Harsh Trivedi, Ms. Eesha Mohapatra, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Advs. for the Appellant. ' Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., V. N. Raghupathy, Anirudh Sanganeria, Amjid Maqbool, Parikshit P. Angadi, Chinnay Deshpande, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. I. The appellant is a public limited company having a tea manufacturing unit at Dharwad and various other units which also manufacture tea. The tea manufactured by the appellant Is of three types, namely, packet tea, tea in tea bags, and quic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.