Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Central Excise

        2004 (1) TMI 77 - SC - Central Excise

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court ruling: Assessable value calculation for cigarettes upheld. Duty rate confirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the interpretation that the reduction of Rs. 5.50 per thousand cigarettes should be applied during the calculation of the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Supreme Court ruling: Assessable value calculation for cigarettes upheld. Duty rate confirmed.

                          The Supreme Court upheld the interpretation that the reduction of Rs. 5.50 per thousand cigarettes should be applied during the calculation of the assessable value, not at the duty payment stage. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the duty rate for cigarettes made from duty-paid tobacco as 400% plus Rs. 15.50 per thousand. The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments, with no order as to costs.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Interpretation of Notification No. 30/79-C.E., dated 1st March, 1979.
                          2. Stage at which the reduction of Rs. 5.50 per thousand cigarettes is to be applied.
                          3. Application of Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act.
                          4. Relevance of precedents, specifically Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India and Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Bata India Ltd.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Interpretation of Notification No. 30/79-C.E., dated 1st March, 1979:
                          The notification exempts certain cigarettes from a portion of the excise duty, specifying rates in a table. For cigarettes manufactured from duty-paid tobacco, the duty is reduced by Rs. 5.50 per thousand cigarettes. The core issue is whether this reduction should be applied at the stage of duty payment or during the calculation of the assessable value.

                          2. Stage at which the reduction of Rs. 5.50 per thousand cigarettes is to be applied:
                          The appellants argued that the reduction should be applied at the stage of duty payment, claiming that applying it during the calculation of the assessable value results in only a partial benefit. The respondents and lower authorities maintained that the reduction should occur during the calculation of the assessable value. The Supreme Court upheld the latter interpretation, stating that the reduction of Rs. 5.50 must be applied when determining the assessable value, not at the duty payment stage.

                          3. Application of Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act:
                          The appellants contended that the notification should be read in conjunction with Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act, which defines "value" for excise duty purposes. They argued that the notification's exemption should affect the assessable value calculation. The Court disagreed, clarifying that the notification's wording explicitly reduces the duty rate for cigarettes made from duty-paid tobacco by Rs. 5.50 per thousand, which should be reflected in the assessable value.

                          4. Relevance of precedents:
                          Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India: The appellants cited this case, where the deduction was applied at the duty payment stage, but the Court found the notification's wording in Kirloskar Brothers different from the current case. The precedent did not apply due to differing notification language.

                          Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Bata India Ltd.: The Court referenced this case, which supported the view that the assessable value should be calculated without including excise duty unless explicitly stated otherwise. The decision emphasized that the duty element should be excluded from the assessable value only if it is actually payable.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Supreme Court upheld the lower authorities' interpretation that the reduction of Rs. 5.50 per thousand cigarettes should be applied during the calculation of the assessable value. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the duty rate for cigarettes made from duty-paid tobacco is 400% plus Rs. 15.50 per thousand. The Court found no merit in the appellants' arguments and ruled in favor of the respondents, with no order as to costs.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found