TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether cigarette packets, outer shells and inner slides fall within Tariff Item 17(4) and are outside the exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. dated 28-2-1982; (ii) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the departmental communication and available statutory remedies.
Issue (i): Whether cigarette packets, outer shells and inner slides fall within Tariff Item 17(4) and are outside the exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. dated 28-2-1982.
Analysis: Duty under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 attached to goods in the First Schedule, but exemption could be granted under Rule 8 through a notification. The notification exempted articles of paper and paper board falling under Item 17(4), except printed boxes and printed cartons. The deciding test was the ordinary and trade understanding of the article. On that approach, a cigarette packet was not shown to be known in trade or common parlance as a box or carton. The reasoning also treated the packet as coming into existence only when cigarettes were inserted, and there was no reliable material that the shells and slides were independently marketable as printed boxes or cartons.
Conclusion: The goods were held not to fall within the exclusion for printed boxes or printed cartons, and exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. was available; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the departmental communication and available statutory remedies.
Analysis: The impugned communication was treated as a binding direction flowing from the Board's clarification, not as a mere informal intimation. Since the department had already taken a definitive stand on classification and exemption, the petitioners were held not bound to pursue the ordinary assessment process before seeking relief. The existence of statutory remedies did not bar writ jurisdiction in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were held maintainable, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The departmental action was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to exemption from excise duty on the disputed cigarette packet components.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, goods must be understood in trade and common parlance, and an exemption notification must be applied according to that commercial understanding; where the Revenue cannot show that the goods answer the specific excluded description, exemption must be granted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
