Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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