Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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