Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High 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

Supreme Court Rules that Pan Masala without Tobacco is not Subject to Excise Duty

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has held that pan masala and gutkha fall under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and are liable to state sales tax. The apex court, in a judgment delivered on May 4, 2023, said that the product pan masala, without tobacco, went out of the reach of state sales tax for the first time after the imposition of additional duty of excise in 2001 on pan masala containing tobacco. The Court also held that the amendments to the Central Excise Tariff Act do not affect or change the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and therefore, gutkha and pan masala are not covered under sub-heading 2404.40 as far as the CST Act is concerned.

The Court made the observations while disposing of an appeal by several assessees challenging the levy of local sales tax on pan masala and gutkha. The assessees had argued that pan masala and gutkha should be classified under Chapter 24 of the CET Act, which deals with tobacco items. However, the Revenue authorities maintained that pan masala and gutkha were covered under Chapter 21 of the CET Act, which deals with other edible preparations, and that they were liable to state sales tax.

The Court, after examining the relevant provisions of the CET Act, held that pan masala and gutkha fell within Chapter 21, as pan masala, regardless of whether they contained tobacco. The Court also noted that the General Rules of Interpretation of the CET Act provide that the heading which provides the most accurate description has to be followed, and that goods classifiable under Chapter 24, i.e., tobacco items, were more general and did not include pan masala.

The Court further held that gutkha and pan masala were not declared goods under the CST Act and that the subsequent amendments to the CET Act introducing sub-heading 2404.40 did not affect or change the CST Act. Therefore, gutkha and pan masala were not covered under sub-heading 2404.40 as far as the CST Act was concerned, and the rate of local tax could exceed the limit under the CST Act.

The Court also noted that earlier decisions of the Court had held that pan masala and chewing tobacco were different products and were not interchangeable or synonymous expressions. The Court held that till 2001 and the introduction of additional duty of excise, pan masala and gutkha were covered by local or sales tax levies, and were not liable to excise duty.

Date of Decision: May 04, 2023

M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD.vs  GOVT.OF N.C.T OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

Latest Legal News