Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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