UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SONIC ELECTROCHEM (P) LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 17-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
J 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SONIC ELECTROCHEM (P) LTD. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 
(SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Cemral Excise Tari.ff Act, 1985: 
Schedule-Sub heading 85.16-Excise duty on plastic body of Electro 
Mosquito Repel/ant (EMR) and 'Fragrant Mat'-EMR exempted under C 
clause(d) of Notification No. 160186-CE dated 1.3.1986-Revenue issuing 
show cause notice to respondent-manufacturer, demanding excise duty on 
plastic body of EMR as it fell within 'domestic electrical appliances' and on 
fragrant mat-According to the Revenue, the items were chargeable to excise 
duty respectively under clause 5(j) of Notification No.160186-CE dated March D 
/, 1986 and sub-heading 3307.49 of the Act-High Court quashed the show 
cause notices holding that plastic body was not 'goods' within the meaning 
of Tari.ff Act and not liable to excise duty. as also that 'Fragrant Mat' did 
not answer the description of sub-heading 3307.49-Held, plastic body, 
which is a part of EMR of respondent-manufacturer, is not 'good' so as to 
be liable to duty as part of EMR under clause 5(d) of the Notification-It E 
is being manufactured by respondents for its captive consumption-ft is not 
a product in the market with any commercial name-The essence of 
marketability is neither in the form nor in the shape or condition in which 
the manufactured articles are to be found, it is the commercial identity of the 
articles known to the market for being brought and sold-Plastic body of F 
EMR does not satisfY these criteria-Fragrant Mats are classified under sub-
heading 3307.41 and not under 3307.49. 
A.P. State Electricity Boardv. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, 
119941 2 sec 428, referred to. 
Sub-heading 3307.41- 'Agarbatti' 'Dhoop' and similar preparations-
'Fragrant Mat', a mosquito repel/ant-Excise duty-Revenue contending 
that 'Fragrant Mat' being a mosquito repel/ant could not be brought under 
sub-heading 3307.41 as it could not be said to be 'Agrabatti' or 'Dhoop'-
Held, not merely 'Agarballi' and 'Dhoop · but preparations which are akin 
475 
G 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A to 'Agarbatti' and 'Dhoop' and which can produce vapour on bu ming and 
spread perfiune would fall within 1he meaning of the enl1J~From the process 
of manufacture of Fragranl ,\/a1. ir cw11101 but be held !hat preparation in 
Mat form is similar lo that of' 'Agarhulli '-Therefore, Fragra/1/ Mats are 
c/ass(fiable under Sub-Heading 3301.41 and not under 3307.49 of the Tarrif 
B Act. 
c 
Words and Phrases 
, 
'goods'-Meaning of in the co111ex1 of Excise Tariff Ac1. 1985. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 182of1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1994 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M.P. Nos. 1817 of 1991. 
WITH 
D 
C.A. Nos 108/95 and 1649 of 1996. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, N.K. Bajpai, Hemant Shanna, 
Ms. Rekha Pandey and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. 
A.R. Madhav Rao, Alok Yadav, M.P. Devnath, Vishwanath Shukla, 
E Vivek Gambhir and V. Balachandran for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Cou11 was delivered : 
In these appeals, the short question that arise for consideration is: 
whether plastic body, a part of Electro Mosquito Repellant, and 'Fragrant 
F Mat' are chargeable to excise duty under Clause 5(t) of Notification 160\86-
CE dated March I, 1986 and Sub-Heading 3307.49, respectively, of the Central 
Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 
Show cause notices were issued to the appellants under Section I 1-A 
of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Excise Act'] by the 
G Superintendent Central Excise Range II, Pithampur, raising demand of excise 
duty on plastic body of Electro Mosquito Repellant (for short, 'E.M.R. ') 
[which falls within 'Domestic electrical appliances] classifiable under Sub 
Heading 85.16 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Tariff Act') 
and on Fragrant mat. The respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 182 of 1995 and 
H I 08 of 1995 filed writ petitions, under A11icle 226 of the Constitution, before 
I
U.0.1. v. SONIC ELECTROCHEM (P) LTD. 
477 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the validity of the show cause A 
notices. However, the respondent in Civil Appeal No.1649 of 1996 filed reply 
before the concerned authorities. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, 
Indore, confirmed the demand which was assalied before Customs, Excise 
and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal in appeal. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.