In APSEB v. CCE, (1994) 2 SCC 428, it was held thus:
“marketability is an essential ingredient in order to be dutiable under the Schedule to the Act.”
The marketability is thus essentially a question of fact to be decided on the facts of each case. There can be no generalization.
Marketability is a decisive test for dutiability. It only means ‘saleable’ or ‘suitable for sale’. It need not be in fact ‘marketed’. The article should be capable of being sold or being sold, to the consumers in the market, as it is – without anything more.
In Moti Laminates (P) Ltd. v. CCE, (1995) 3 SCC 23 the court held that an intermediate product, namely, resols, not being marketable would not be exigible to duty. The court held:
“Although the duty of excise is on manufacture or production of the goods, but the entire concept of bringing out new commodity etc, is linked with marketability. An article does not become goods in common parlance unless by production or manufacture something new and different is brought out which can be bought and sold. In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., (1977) 1 ELT 199, while construing the word ‘goods’, it was held as under:
“These definitions make it clear that to become “goods” an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold”. Therefore, any goods to attract excise duty must satisfy the test of marketability. The tariff schedule by placing the goods in specific and general category does not alter the basic structure of leviability. The duty is attracted not because an article is covered in any of the items or it falls in residuary category but it must further have been produced or manufactured and it is capable of being bought and sold.”
In Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd., (2002) 7 SCC 435, the question whether the plastic body of electro mosquito repellant was excisable goods was decided thus:
“The germane question is whether it has marketability. The plastic body is being manufactured to suit the requirements of EMR of the respondents and is not available in the market for being bought and sold. It is not a standardized item or goods known and generally dealt with in the market. It is being manufactured by the respondents for its captive consumption. It is not a product known in the market with any commercial name.
Marketability of goods has certain attributes. The essence of marketability is neither in the form nor in the shape or condition in which the manufactured articles are to be found, it is the commercial identity of the articles known to the market for being bought and sold. The fact that the product in question is generally not being bought and sold or has no demand in the market would be irrelevant. The plastic body of EMR does not satisfy the aforementioned criteria. There are some competing manufacturers of EMR. Each is having a different plastic body to suit its design and requirement. If one goes to the market to purchase the plastic body of EMR of the respondents either for replacement or otherwise, one cannot get it in the market because at present, it is not a commercially known product. For these reasons, the plastic body, which is a part of EMR of the respondents, is not ‘goods’ so as to be liable to duty as parts of EMR under Para 5 (f) of the said exemption notification. Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 9 SCC 109.
Monthly Archives: October 2015
In APSEB v. CCE, (1994) 2 SCC 428, it was held thus:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sajida Begum v. State Bank of India, AIR 2013 AP 24 in holding the tribunal to be court has relied on Sections 22 and 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. Section 22 vests power of Civil Court on the Tribunal only for purposes mentioned therein, such as summoning witnesses etc. and deems Tribunals to be courts for specified purposes, such as for Sections 193, 196 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These provisions may not be conclusive of the question of the Tribunal being court for section 29(2) of the Limitation Act without further examining the scheme of the statutes in question. In Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, (2009) 8 SCC 646, the Court examined the scheme of the two Acts in question and held that the tribunal was a court but not a civil court for purposes of Section 24 of the CPC. Power of condonation of delay was expressly applicable by virtue of Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act read with proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act and to that extent, the provisions of Limitation Act having been expressly incorporated under the special statutes in question, Section 29(2) stands impliedly excluded. Even though Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be impliedly inapplicable, principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be held to be applicable even if Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply as laid down by the court in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, (2008) 7 SCC 169.
Delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act can be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 20 (3) of the RDB Act read with Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. Bank of India, 2015 (112) ALR 645.
The term “accessory” has been defined by lexicographers broadly to mean as something which contributes to or aids in an activity or process.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines it as – “a thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile or attractive.”
According to Merriam Webster Dictionary it is “something added to something else to make it more useful, attractive or effective.”
Black’s Law Dictionary provides that the term “accessory—Means anything which is joined to another thing as an ornament or to render it more perfect or which accompanies it or is connected with it as an incident or as subordinate to it or which belongs to or with it. Adjunct or accompaniment. A thing of subordinate importance. Aiding or contributing in secondary way or assisting in or contributing to as a subordinate.”
The meaning of the expression “accessory” has been explained by the court in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of A.P., (1976) 2 SCC 273, in the light of the question whether “arc carbon” is an “accessory” to cinema projectors or other cinematographic equipment under Item 4 of Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as follows:
“The term accessories is used in the Schedule to describe goods which may have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition.
Other meanings given there are “‘supplementary or secondary to something of greater or primary importance’, ‘additional’, ‘any of several mechanical devices that assist in operating or controlling the tone resources of an organ’. ‘Accessories’ are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument.” Commissioner of Sales Tax v. AKZO Nobel India Ltd., (2014) 16 SCC 242.
Artistic freedom cannot be curbed by allowing an over sensitive individual to lift a passage, dialogue or clip out of context. Every part of an artistic portrayal must be read in the context of the whole. Otherwise freedom to speak and express will be reduced to husk. That freedom comprehends not merely the freedom of the director, producer, artist and script writer but equally the freedom of the audience to see, watch, observe and assess. A Statutory Authority in the form of the Central Board of Film Certification has been constituted for the certification of films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Lifting of an isolated extract from a motion picture would not do justice either to the fundamental right of the producer, director, script writer and artist or, for that matter, to the right of the community at large to view what is offered in pursuance of a certification granted in accordance with law. Anil Pradhan v. Union of India, (2015) 3 UPLBEC 1890.
Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by using the words “unless otherwise agreed by the parties”, categorically specifies that the arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract so far as award of interest from the date of cause of action to date of the award is concerned. Therefore, where the parties had agreed that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award interest.
In Union of India v. Saraswat Trading Agency, (2009) 16 SCC 504, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in the said case that if there is a bar against payment of interest in the contract, the arbitrator cannot award any interest for such period. Union of India v. Bright Power Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (4) AWC 3862.
The “doctrine of merger” is not a “doctrine of universal or unlimited application”. It is not that in every case where there are two orders, one by the inferior authority and the other by a superior authority, it is to be deemed that former had merged in the latter thereby losing its identity completely. The applicability of the doctrine of merger will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject matter of challenge laid. It will depend upon the subject matter of the appeal or revision or the scope of proceedings in which final orders are passed.
The same legal position has been laid down in the case of Kunhay Ahmed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359. The court referred to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 681, wherein it had held that the doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and the applicability of the same are dependent upon the scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statute, the nature of the appeal or revisional order and the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. State of U.P. v. Vivekanand Singh, 2015 (4) AWC 4130.