Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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