9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for that year, shall pay tax on his taxable turnover for that year. Schedules I and II fix the point of time at which the taxes are leviable, and Schedule III enumerates the goods exempted from tax under Section 9. Entry 5 in the Third Schedule reads as follows: "Sugar as defined in Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944." Sugar is defined in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Excise Act), under Entry No. 1 as follows : "Sugar, produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar - 'Sugar' means any form of sugar in which the sucrose content, if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105° Centigrade, would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the expression "sugar" was used in Entry 1 of Schedule I to the Excise Act, was sugar produced or manufactured in a factory other than what was produced or manufactured in India. He also pointed out that in Section 3 of the Excise Act, the emphasis again is on the goods manufactured in India; and that fact lent support to the contention that sugar defined or described in Entry No. 1 in Schedule I to the Excise Act could only be the sugar produced or manufactured in a factory in India. It appears to us that the Government Pleader's argument proceeds on a wrong assumption that the definition of the term "sugar" in Entry 1 of Schedule I to the Excise Act has been borrowed for the purpose of Entry 5 in Schedule III to the Salt Tax Act, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making of the like indigenous article. The provision corresponds to Section 2A of the existing Act, and is necessary to safeguard the interests of the manufacturers in India." 4. The counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Khandelwal Metal Engineering Works v. Union of India -AIR 1985 SC 1211 = 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (SC). On a close reading of the relevant pages, particularly paragraph 42 in page 1223 of the decision, we are of the opinion that the decision could not in any way advance the case of the revenue. The importance of the decision cited lies in the fact that the Supreme Court held that additional duty mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act (Act 51 of 1975), was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
