Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence NHAI Cannot Allege Corruption In Land Acquisition Awards While Simultaneously Compromising Them: Bombay High Court State Must Prove Land Acquisition, Citizen Cannot Be Forced To Prove A Negative Fact: Calcutta High Court Seriousness Of Offence Or Age No Bar For Juvenile's Bail Under Section 12 JJ Act: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To 14-Year-Old Suppression Of Material Facts Must Be Palpable And Ex Facie To Vacate Ex Parte Injunction Under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC: Calcutta High Court Pendency Of Criminal Case At FIR Stage Is No Bar To Issuance Or Renewal Of Passport: Andhra Pradesh High Court

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