Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Rules Goods Sold to Military and Paramilitary Institutions Ineligible for Tax Benefits under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that goods sold to military and paramilitary institutions are ineligible for tax benefits under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Sudhanshu Dhulia. The case, titled Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur v. M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., pertained to the interpretation of tax benefits claimed by the Respondent for the sale of footwear to defense and paramilitary forces.

The Court emphasized that for goods to qualify for tax benefits under Section 4(A) of the Act, they must meet certain criteria as outlined in the Jayanti Foods judgment. Justice Krishna Murari, delivering the judgment, stated, "The primary question before us today is whether the goods sold by the respondent are eligible to claim tax benefits within the purview of the abovementioned notification under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act?"

Upon analysis, the Court concluded that the sale of goods to military and paramilitary institutions did not qualify as retail sales under the Act. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 exempted sales to institutional consumers from its purview. Justice Murari added, "The transaction between the Respondent and the institutions cannot claim the benefit of Section 4(A) of the Act."

The Court clarified that the mere affixation of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on goods does not automatically make them eligible for tax benefits. It emphasized the requirement of a mandate of law for the affixation of MRP. As a result, the Court set aside the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that had allowed the Respondent's plea for tax benefits.

Date of Decision: 21st March 2023

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE  & SERVICE TAX, KANPUR   vs M/S. A.R. POLYMERS PVT. LTD.

Latest Legal News