TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules on liability for Additional Duty of Excise on unbranded chewing tobacco</h1> <h3>BISWAN TOBACCO INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW</h3> BISWAN TOBACCO INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 192 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Whether M/s. Biswan Tobacco Industries and M/s. Khattri Kimam Co. (P) Ltd. are liable to pay the Additional Duty of Excise for unbranded chewing tobacco manufactured during specific periods.Analysis:The Appeals were filed to determine the liability of the two companies for paying the Additional Duty of Excise concerning the manufacturing of unbranded chewing tobacco within certain time frames. The Appellants argued that they were not obligated to pay the duty as they believed it was exempted based on previous notifications. They highlighted that the impugned product fell under S.S.I. Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and that the duty exemption under Notification No. 8/98 C.E. did not cover the Additional Duty of Excise. They claimed that the duty liability was not discharged due to a genuine misunderstanding. However, the Departmental Representative contended that since Notification No. 9/96 was not amended to include Notification No. 8/98, the Additional Duty of Excise was indeed applicable to the Appellants.Upon considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal examined the notifications in question. It was observed that when Notification No. 8/98-C.E. was issued for basic excise duty, it was not incorporated into Notification No. 9/96-C.E., which granted exemption under the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. As there was no specific exemption notification for the Additional Duty of Excise during the relevant period, the Tribunal concluded that the duty was payable by the Appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a government-issued notification for exempting the Additional Duty of Excise meant that the duty was indeed leviable, despite previous exemptions before and after the relevant period. Consequently, both Appeals filed by the appellants were rejected by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
