9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sugar for the purpose of sugar covered under subheading Nos. 1701.10, 1701.20, 1701.31 and 1701.39 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985, there is no dispute possible in fact, not seriously raised. Such subheadings defined the term ‘sugar' in the same manner as it was done under item no.1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is not even the case of the petitioner that levy and collection of additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, is exempted. The respondent had pointed out before the tribunal that his vendors pay full additional duty at the point of clearance of goods. State Government however, raised a curious contention na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of M/s. Virumal Santumal passed in Revision Application Nos. 16 17 of 2009, holding that patasa, harda and sakaria are different forms of sugar, and therefore, they are required to be assessed, as if, they are sugar or fall in the category and entry of sugar and consequently the Tribunal has set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, holding that these sales are not at part with the sale of sugar, and therefore, such sales are exempted from payment of income tax. 3. Heard, Shri. Jaymin Gandhi, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in the matter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not satisfied. The condition is when levy and collection of additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, is not exempted on account of any exemption or drawback granted under that Act. If this condition is satisfied, it would not be open for the petitioner to deny the benefit of exemption to the respondent in terms of entry 86 of schedule-I to the GST Act. In the present case, it is not even the case of the petitioner that levy and collection of additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, is exempted. The respondent had pointed out before the tribunal that his vendors pay full additional duty at the point of clearance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this background that the Supreme Court rendered its decision. Only condition of entry 86 is that additional levy and collection of additional duty of excise should not be exempt. There is no additional onus cast on the dealer to establish that same was actually paid. 4. In view of the above and in view of the fact that judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in Revision Application Nos. 16 and 17 of 2009, which has been relied upon by the learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and order, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing Special Civil Application Nos. 591 592 of 2014, the present Special Civil Applications also deserve to be dismissed and are DISMISSED, accordingly. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
