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>Supreme Court Upholds Excise Duty on Destroyed Liquor</h1> <h3>State Of UP Through Secretary (Excise) & Ors. Versus M/s. Mcdowell And Company Limited</h3> State Of UP Through Secretary (Excise) & Ors. Versus M/s. Mcdowell And Company Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Demand of Excise Duty on Liquor Lost in Fire2. Negligence and Liability of the Respondent Company3. Effect of Insurance Coverage Only of the Value of LiquorDetailed Analysis:1. Demand of Excise Duty on Liquor Lost in Fire:The appellants questioned the High Court's order quashing the demand for excise duty on liquor destroyed in a fire. The Supreme Court examined whether the demand was authorized by law under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, the Excise Manual, and the Uttar Pradesh Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969. The Court noted that excise duty is a tax on the manufacture or production of liquor, not on its sale. The duty becomes exigible at the end of the distillation process or when issued from the distillery. The Court rejected the argument that excise duty could only be levied at the point of issue from the warehouse, stating that the taxable event was the production or manufacture of the liquor.2. Negligence and Liability of the Respondent Company:The Court examined whether the fire incident was due to negligence on the part of the respondent company. The High Court had found that the incident was an act of God and not due to negligence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the fire could not be attributed to natural forces like storms or lightning. The Court found that the respondent company failed to take adequate precautions, such as ensuring proper electrical installations and firefighting measures. The Court held that the respondent's negligence in maintaining safe custody of the highly inflammable liquor led to the fire, making them liable for the excise duty.3. Effect of Insurance Coverage Only of the Value of Liquor:The respondent company had taken insurance coverage only for the value of the liquor, not for the excise duty payable on it. The appellants argued that this omission amounted to negligence. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the respondent's failure to insure the excise duty liability indicated negligence. The Court noted that the respondent had received the value of the liquor from the insurer, which should be considered akin to the sale of liquor for the purpose of excise duty. The Court held that the receipt of the insurance claim related back to the date of the fire, making the respondent liable to pay excise duty at the rate applicable on that date.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and upheld the demand of excise duty on the liquor destroyed in the fire. The Court found that the respondent company was negligent in ensuring the safe custody of the liquor and was liable to pay the excise duty. The Court also dismissed the respondent's miscellaneous application for a refund.
TaxTMI 