TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether cess could be levied under section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 on jute twine, yarn and rope manufactured in a scheduled industry though they are not textiles within Item 23 of the First Schedule; (ii) Whether the levy was inconsistent with the exemption granted under the Central Excise regime and the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976; (iii) Whether fixation of cess by reference to weight was ultra vires section 9(1) of the Act; (iv) Whether the uniform rate of cess offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether cess could be levied under section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 on jute twine, yarn and rope manufactured in a scheduled industry though they are not textiles within Item 23 of the First Schedule.
Analysis: The levy under section 9(1) extends to all goods manufactured or produced in a scheduled industry as specified by the Central Government. The fact that jute twine and rope are not themselves textiles did not exclude them from cess when they were goods manufactured in the textile industry, and the explanations to the First Schedule were not relevant to the cess provision.
Conclusion: The levy on jute twine, yarn and rope was valid and the challenge failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the levy was inconsistent with the exemption granted under the Central Excise regime and the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976.
Analysis: The excise duty exemption and the cess under section 9(1) operated under different statutes and were separate imposts. An exemption from central excise duty did not bar levy of cess under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.
Conclusion: There was no inconsistency or legal infirmity in the impugned cess notification on this ground.
Issue (iii): Whether fixation of cess by reference to weight was ultra vires section 9(1) of the Act.
Analysis: Section 9(1) did not require the rate to be fixed only ad valorem. The proviso only prescribed the ceiling of the levy by reference to value. Fixation of a rate with reference to weight was therefore not contrary to the provision.
Conclusion: The mode of fixation of cess was within the statutory power.
Issue (iv): Whether the uniform rate of cess offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: In view of the constitutional protection of the statute and the legislative setting, the petitioner could not succeed on the plea of discrimination. The challenge based on unequal treatment was not accepted.
Conclusion: The Article 14 challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned cess demand and notification were upheld, and the petitioner obtained no substantive relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 authorises cess on goods manufactured or produced in a scheduled industry as specified by the Central Government, and an exemption from central excise duty does not negate a separate cess levy under that Act.
TaxTMI 
