At Jammu vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir Through … on 31 December, 2024

January 2, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

At Jammu vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir Through … on 31 December, 2024

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Puneet Gupta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 18.12.2024
Pronounced on 31.12.2024
.

WP(C ) No. 3273/2019 ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Phase-I Industrial Growth
Centre, Samba
Vs

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2. Excise Commissioner, J&K Government, Excise Department,
Jammu
3.Director, Industries, Jammu
4. Deputy Excise Commissioner, Jammu
5.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No. 2257/2019

M/S Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd Industrial Growth Cwentre,
Samba
Vs

WP(C ) No. 2658/2019

Bari Brahamana Industrial Association, BBIA Bhawan, SIDCO
Industrial Complex, Bari Brahamana Jammu
Vs.
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2. State of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner.

WP(C ) No. 2992/2019

Zeiss Pharma Limited Phase-II IGC Sidco Samba
Vs.
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2 State of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner
4.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No. 2993/2019

Anphar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd Industrial Extension Area Phase
III Gangyal Jammu
Vs.
2

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2 State of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner
4.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No.3000/2019

Pharose Remedies Ltd. 2nd Milestone, Patli Morh, Tarore, Bari
Brahamana
Vs.

WP(C ) No. 3211/2019

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited,Lane No.3, Phase-II, Sidco
IndustrialComplex,Baribrahamana,
VS

WP(C ) No. 3361/2019

M/S UPL LTD. Phase-I Industrial Growth Centre, Samba
VS
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2. Excise Commissioner, J&K Government, Excise Department,
Jammu
3.Director, Industries, Jammu
4. Deputy Excise Commissioner, Jammu
5.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No. 3362/2019

RITZY POLYMERS A Partnership Firm under the Partnership
Act,1932 Having its unit(s) at Chemical Zone,
Industrial Growth Center,Phase-1,Samba,Jammu

Vs.

WP(C ) No. 3414/2019

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. lane No.3, Phase-I,
Sidco Industrial Complex, Baribrahamana, Jammu.

vs.

WP(C ) No. 3448/2019

M/S OPTIMA FARM SOLUTIONS LTD. Phase-! Industrial
Growth Centre, Samba
vs.

WP(C ) No. 3451/2019

MONTAGE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. Lane No.4, Phase-I,
Sidco Industrial Complex,Bari Brahmana, Jammu.
vs.
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2 State of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner
4.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No. 3470/2019

ETHICARE LABORATORIES 15 Industrial Estate, Digiana,
Jammu
vs.
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2 State of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner
4.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No. 3479/2019

ACCENT PHARMA Block D, EPIP, Sidco, Kartholi II Bari
Brahamana, Jammu
vs

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2 State of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
4

Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner
4.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur
STATE

WP(C ) No. 3532/2019

ZUVENTUS HEALTHCARE LIMITED Lane No.3, Phase-
II,Sidco Industrial Complex, Baribrahamana,Tehsil and District,
Samba
vs.
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2 State of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner
4.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No. 3604/2019

M/S AGRO LIFE SCIENCE CORP. IID Centre, Plot No. 166-
173A,Govindsar District Kathua

vs.

WP(C ) No. 3664/2019

UFLEX LIMITED UNIT II Lane No.2, Phase-1, Sidco
Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu
vs.

WP(C ) No. 3687/2019

RITZY POLYMERS A Partnership Firm under the Partnership
Act,1932Having its unit(s) at Chemical Zone,
Industrial Growth Center,Phase-1,Samba,Jammu
vs.
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2. Excise Commissioner, J&K Government, Excise Department,
Jammu
3.Director, Industries, Jammu
4. Deputy Excise Commissioner, Jammu
5.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur
5

WP(C ) No. 3704/2019

M/S KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORT PVT. LTD. 1st Parallel
Road, IGC,District Samba
vs.
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
2. Excise Commissioner, J&K Government, Excise Department,
Jammu
3.Director, Industries, Jammu
4. Deputy Excise Commissioner, Jammu
5.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

WP(C ) No. 3858/2019

UFLEX LIMITED UNIT III Lane No.3, Phase-1, Sidco
Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu
vs.

WP(C ) No. 4412/2019

VIVEK PHARMACHEM INDIA LIMITED EPIP
Baribrahamana, Jammu.
vs.

1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary
to Government, Finance Department.
2 UT of J&K through commissioner/Secretary Industries and
Commerce Department.
3.J&K Excise Department through Excise Commissioner
4.Deputy Excise Commissioner, Lakhanpur

For Mr. Pranav Kohli Sr. Advocate with
petitioners: Mr. Arun Dev Singh Advocate
Mr. Amar Pratap Singh Advocate
Mr. Vishal Goel Advocate.
Mr. J. A Hamal Advocate.
Mr. Aftab Malik Advocate.

For respondents:

Ms Monika Kohli Sr. AAG
6

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar J

1 The petitioners in all these petitions are entrepreneurs who have

established their industrial units in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. Some of

these units are engaged in the manufacturing of medicinal and toiletry

preparations, whereas the others manufacture various products out of the raw

materials, such as absolute alcohol/denatured spirit/special denatured

spirit/rectified spirit/plain spirit, etc. They are aggrieved of and have

challenged sub-clause (B) of Clause 14 “Excise Duty-Civil” of Excise Policy

2019-20 [“Excise Policy 2019-20”] to the extent it provides for the levy of

excise duty at the rate of Rs. 10 per litre in respect of rectified spirit/alcohol

and denatured spirit used in medicinal and toiletry preparations, other than in

manufacture of liquor.

2 The impugned clause of the Excise Policy 2019-20,

promulgated vide SRO 128 dated 25.02.2019, is challenged primarily on the

ground that the then State of Jammu and Kashmir, as it was before the

promulgation of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, did not have the

legislative competence to impose a levy of excise duty on the rectified spirit

etc. for use in medicinal and toiletry preparations and also that the raw

material procured by the petitioners i.e rectified spirit etc., is exigible to

Goods and Services Tax (GST) under Integrated Goods and Services Act

2017 and, therefore, levy of duty of excise on the same product amounts to

double taxation, which is not permissible in law.

3 The writ petitions are opposed by the State (now UT of Jammu

and Kashmir) on the ground that the alcoholic liquor/alcohol falls within the
7

legislative competence of the State, in that, prior to the abrogation of Article

370 of the Constitution of India, all residuary legislative powers were vested

in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is submitted that Entry 84 of

the Union list, as recast by virtue of the Constitution (One hundred and First

Amendment), 2016, does not make any mention of the rectified

spirit/denatured spirit used in medicinal and toiletry preparations. It is

further submitted that Entry 84 of the Union list is not applicable to the cases

on hand. It is pleaded in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents that the

State legislature derived its power to legislate on the excise duty under

Section 5 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. To sum up their

response, the respondents have submitted that, with the implementation of

the Goods and Services Tax Act as applicable to the State of Jammu and

Kashmir on 07.07.2017, the J&K VAT Act, J&K Entry Tax on Goods Act,

2000, J&K Entertainment Tax Act, 1962 and J&K Entertainments Duty Act,

2016 came to be repealed. J&K Excise Act, 1958 [“State Excise Act”] which

was enacted by the then State of Jammu and Kashmir, remained intact and

that it is in the exercise of powers conferred by the State Excise Act, the

impugned clause in the Excise Policy of 2019-2020 has been framed.

4 Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

material on record, it is necessary to first advert to the Excise Policy 2019-20

promulgated vide SRO 128 dated 25-02-2019 and the impugned clause 14

(B) thereof. The impugned clause reads thus:

14. Excise Duty: -CIVIL
A…………………………..

B Rectified spirit, alcohol, denatured spirit and molasses

Type Rate

Rectified Rs.10/litre
spirit/alcohol/denatured
spirit for use in medicinal
and toiletry preparations,
8

other than in manufacture
of liquor

Molasses Rs.20
per
quintal

5 SRO 128 (supra) professes to promulgate the Excise Policy

2019-20, which was to come into force on 26.02.2019 and to remain in

force till 31.03.2020. The policy, as is apparent from reading of its

objectives, was issued to simplify the regulatory structure by rationalizing

and reducing the number of taxes, duties and other levies, thereby

maximizing revenue realization. It also aimed to promote greater social

consciousness about the harmful effects of consumption of liquor and

alcoholic beverages etc. Apart from providing other measures, it also fixed

the rate of excise duty payable under the State Excise Act. So far as excise

duty on the rectified spirit/alcohol/denatured spirit for use in medicinal and

toiletry preparations is concerned, the policy prescribed a levy of duty at the

rate of Rs.10 per litre.

6 The petitioners have challenged the impugned clause on two

grounds: (i) legislative competence, and (ii) double taxation.

Legislative competence:

7 Since the petitioners have raised the issue with regard to the

legislative competence of the State to impose the impugned levy, it would,

therefore, be desirable to trace out the power in the exercise whereof the

rectified spirit/alcohol/denatured spirit for use in medicinal and toiletry

preparations has been levied with duty of excise at the rate of Rs.10 per litre.

8 Way back in Svt. 1955, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with a

view to consolidating and amending the law relating to the import, export
9

transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and

intoxicating drugs in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, enacted the State

Excise Act. The term “liquor” is defined under subsection (3) of Section 3 of

the Act. It reads as under:

“3(3) ” Liquor” means intoxicating liquor and includes spirits
of wine, methylated spirits, spirits, wine, beer and all liquids
consisting of or containing alcohol; also any substance which
the Government may by notification in the Government
Gazette declare to be liquor for purposes of this Act”

9 From the aforeaid definition, it is abundantly clear that “liquor”

includes spirits of wine, methylated spirits, spirits, wine, beer and all liquids

consisting of or containing alcohol. Section 5 of the State Excise Act

provides that no liquor or intoxicating drugs shall be imported in the State of

Jammu and Kashmir except after payment of any duty to which it may be

liable under this Act. For facility of reference, Section 5 is also set out

below:

“5.Import of liquor and intoxicating drugs-
No liquor or intoxicating drug shall be imported into the
Jammu and Kashmir State except :- (a) after payment of any
duty to which it may be liable under this Act, or execution of a
bond for such payment, and

(b) in compliance with such conditions as the Government may
impose”.

10 The duty on the import of liquor or intoxicating drugs in the

State of Jammu and Kashmir is leviable under Section 16 of the Act which

reads as under:

“16 Duty on liquor or intoxicating drugs.-
A duty shall, if the Government so direct, be levied on all
liquor and intoxicating drugs manufactured in the territories
of the State or imported into or exported from the State of such
amount as the Government may from time to time prescribe;
Provided that it shall be lawful for the Government to exempt
any liquor or intoxicating drug from any duty to which the
same may be liable under any of the provisions of this Act”.

11 It is, thus, evident that in terms of Section 16, the Government

is empowered to levy duty on all liquor and intoxicating drugs manufactured

in the territories of the State or imported into or exported from the State. The

Government is also empowered to prescribe the rate of such duty. It is in the

exercise of powers conferred upon the Government under Section 16 of the

State Excise Act, the impugned clause in SRO 128 (supra) has been framed

and a duty at the rate of Rs.10 per litre has been imposed on rectified

spirit/alcohol/denatured spirit for use in medicinal and toiletry preparations.

The aforesaid raw materials used in the manufacture of liquor are, however,

exempted.

12 It is neither the argument of any of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, nor do we find any pleadings in any of the writ

petitions that the State Excise Act is ultra vires the Constitution or beyond

the legislative competence of the State. If the State Excise Act is intra vires

and falls within the legislative competence of the State, no fault could be

found with the impugned clause in SRO 128 (supra), which has been framed

by the Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 16

read with Section 5 of the State Excise Act. Neither Section 5, nor Section

16 are subject matter of challenge in these petitions. The challenge to the

impugned clause in SRO 128 (supra) is, thus, liable to be rejected on this

solitary ground without going into other arguments raised by learned

counsels appearing for the petitioners in these matters.

13 The Excise Policy 2019-20 issued vide SRO 128 (supra) covers

two periods. The first period commences from 26.02.2019 to 05.08.2019

when Article 370 of the Constitution of India was abrogated. The second

period commences from 05.08.2019 to 31.03.2020. During the Excise Policy
11

2019-20 period, there were significant developments viz. the abrogation of

Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the enactment of the J&K

Reorganization Act, 2019 .

14 So far as the period from 26.02.2019, to 05.08.2019 i.e till

Article 370 was abrogated in respect of State of Jammu and Kashmir is

concerned, the indisputable position is that there was no State list applicable

to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the residuary powers of legislation

were vested in the State legislature. The levy of duty of excise on the

manufacture, sale and possession of liquor and intoxicating drugs within the

State as well as import and export of liquor and intoxicating drugs, is

governed by the State Excise Act which has been enacted under the

residuary powers of legislation conferred by the Constitution of India read

with Section 5 of the then State Constitution.

15 Entry 84 of the Union list, as it stood prior to its substitution by

the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, clearly

conferred legislative competence on the Parliament to legislate with respect

to the duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or

produced in India, including the medicinal and toiletry preparations

containing alcohol. The duty of excise referable to Entry 84 is only with

regard to aforementioned goods manufactured and produced in India and

does not touch upon such goods imported in or exported from a particular

State. Entry 84 even after its amendment w.e.f 16.09.2016 does not take

away, in any manner, the legislative competence of the State of Jammu and

Kashmir to levy duty of excise on the import of liquor in the State of Jammu

and Kashmir for manufacture of medicinal and toiletry preparations etc.

Entry 54 of the State list, which in any case was not applicable to the State
12

of Jammu and Kashmir prior to 5th August 2019 when Article 370 of the

Constitution was suitably amended and abridged, only provides for the

imposition of taxes through legislation on the sale of various commodities,

including alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Entry 51 of the State list,

which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to buttress

their argument, was not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir when

the impugned excise policy was promulgated. The Entry, as is apparent from

its bare reading, confers legislative power on the States to impose excise

duty on goods manufactured and produced within the State, including

alcoholic liquor for human consumption and excludes medicinal and toiletry

preparations containing alcohol etc.

16 The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that. in

terms of Entry 84 as it stood prior to its amendment, the power to levy duty

of excise on the alcoholic liquor unfit for human consumption and used for

medicinal and toiletry preparations vested exclusively with the Parliament is

partially correct. As explained above, Entry 84 deals only with the goods

manufactured and produced in India and does not take within its sweep the

goods imported in the State for its use in medicinal and toiletry

preparations. The Entry 84 of the Union list, thus, cannot be said to have

taken away the legislative competence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir,

which it exercised under the residuary powers reserved to it by the

Constitution. The Entry 84 of Union list went under complete makeover

after Hundred and First Amendment of Constitution in the year 2016.

17 Entry 51 of the State list was not applicable to the State of

Jammu and Kashmir. Even the said Entry only dealt with the manufacture

and production of goods, including alcoholic liquor for human consumption
13

and excluding medicinal and toiletry preparations containing alcohol in the

State. As the position stood prior to the abrogation of Article 370 of the

Constitution of India, the executive and legislative powers of the State were

extended to all matters except those with respect to which Parliament had the

power to make laws for the State under the Constitution of India.

18 As already noted, when the GST regime was extended to the

State of Jammu and Kashmir and the CGST and IGST Acts were applied.

the State Excise Act was neither repealed nor subsumed by the enactment of

the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

19 Viewed from any angle, we are unable to accept the argument

of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned clause in

the Excise Policy 2019-2020, promulgated vide SRO 128 (supra), was

beyond the legislative competence of the State.

20 As explained above, and is stated at the cost of repetition, the

State Excise Act was indisputably within the legislative competence of the

State when it was enacted and continues to remain so even as on date.

Otherwise also, there is no challenge to the vires of the State Excise Act. The

impugned clause in the policy has been framed by the Government of

Jammu and Kashmir in the exercise of powers vested in it under Section 16,

read with Section 5, of the State Excise Act. So long as we do not find any

fault with the State Excise Act, and in particular, with Sections 5 and 16

thereof, the impugned clause in the Excise Policy cannot be declared bad

and unconstitutional for being beyond the legislative competence of the State

Legislature. We, however, find substance in the submission of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners who are not using in their units rectified

spirit/alcohol and denatured spirit etc. for medicinal and toiletry
14

preparations. This so because the impugned clause itself makes it clear

beyond any doubt that what is sought to be levied as the duty of excise at the

rate of 10 per litre is only on the rectified spirit/alcohol/denatured spirit

imported in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for its use in medicinal and

toiletry preparations. The expression “other than in manufacture of liquor” is

redundant appendix and needs to be ignored. As a matter of fact, the import

of rectified spirit/alcohol/denatured spirit in the State of Jammu and Kashmir

for its use in the manufacture of liquor or any other preparations, excluding

the medicinal and toiletry preparations, is not leviable under the impugned

clause with the duty of excise at the rate of 10 per litre.

Double taxation:

21 An argument was raised by some of the learned counsels that,

with the substitution of Entry 84 of List I and the repeal of the Medicinal

and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, by Section 174 of CGST

Act, 2017, the Central Government is left with no power to levy duty of

excise on medicinal and toilet preparations. It is argued that the position, as

it emerges after the implementation of the GST regime, is fortified by

Section 9 of the CGST Act, which provides for the levy of a tax called

“Central Goods and Services Tax” on all intra-State supplies of goods and

services or both, except on the supply of alcoholic liquor for human

consumption and undenatured extra neutral alcohol or rectified spirit used

for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption. It is, thus,

contended that rectified spirit, alcohol, or denatured spirit except when used

for the manufacture of liquor fit for human consumption supplied intra-State

as well as inter-State, is exigible to CGST and IGST under Section 9 of the

CGST Act, 2017, and Section 7 of the IGST Act, 2017 respectively and,
15

therefore, the imposition of duty of excise on the import of these goods by

the State/Union Territory amounts to double taxation, which is

impermissible in law.

22 We have given thoughtful consideration to the argument

vehemently made by some of the learned counsel appearing for writ

petitioners. We must bear in mind that what is levied under the CGST Act,

2017, and the IGST Act, 2017, is a tax, a necessary exaction of money to

fund public expenditure. Such a tax is levied generally on the supply of

goods and services. This is essentially a replacement of the tax which was

earlier levied on intra-State and inter-State sales of goods through State GST

Act and CGST Act.

23 The duty is a specific type of tax applied to goods, typically

when they are manufactured, imported, or exported. Duties of excise are

levied on the manufacture of goods and their import into or export from a

State. Customs duty is a duty which is imposed on imports into and exports

from a State. There is no dispute that when levies are legally distinct, they

can be charged simultaneously. The tax under the CGST Act, 2017 and the

IGST ACT, 2017, and the duty of excise under the State Excise Act are

legally distinct and address separate stages of economic activity. The plea of

“double taxation” is, thus, a hollow argument unworthy of acceptance.

24 May be it is true that rectified spirit, alcohol, or denatured spirit

supplied in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (now UT of J&K) from other

State/States is exigible to tax under Section 7 of IGST Act, 2017, except

when used for the manufacture of liquor fit for human consumption.

However, that does not take away the power of the State to levy a duty of

excise under Section 16 of the State Excise Act when such goods are
16

imported by a unit for use in medicinal and toilet preparations. The IGST is

charged by the Center on inter-State supply of goods and services, as per

nature of such goods or services, as the case may be. The duty of excise

impugned is on the quantity of goods imported for a particular use. The two

levies, being legally distinct, can be levied simultaneously, and such a levy

is not hit by the double taxation, as urged by learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners.

25 We have deliberately avoided to go into the change in the legal

landscape under the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir)

Order, 2019, and its impact on the instant litigation. It is so because these

petitions were filed before 5th August, 2019 and are devoid of any pleadings

or plea in this regard. Nor, the learned counsel argued on the effect of

changes brought about by the Constitution Order, 2019 (supra) on the

legislative competence of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to

levy duty of excise impugned in these petitions.

Conclusions:

26 In view of the foregoing discussion and the conclusions arrived

at, we find no substance in the petitions where the petitioners’ units are

importing rectified spirit/alcohol/denatured spirit for use in medicinal and

toiletry preparations. However, the petitioners, who are importing the

aforesaid goods, either for the manufacturing of liquor or other preparations,

excluding the medicinal and toiletry preparations, are exempted and are not

liable to pay any duty in terms of the impugned clause. This is the plain

interpretation of the impugned clause.

27 For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions where the

petitioners are importing rectified spirit/alcohol/denatured spirit for its use in

the manufacture of medicinal and toiletry preparations are found devoid of

merit and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the writ petitions

in which the petitioners are utilizing the aforesaid raw material for

manufacture of goods, including liquor other than medicinal and toiletry

preparations, are allowed, holding that they shall not be liable to pay any

duty of excise in terms of the impugned clause of the Excise Policy

2019-2020. The respondents shall determine, in each case, as to whether the

petitioners are using/importing the raw material aforesaid for the

manufacture of medicinal and toiletry preparations or not and, accordingly,

take a decision. The petitioners, who are found not using the aforesaid raw

material for manufacture of medicinal and toiletry preparations shall be

entitled to a refund of excise duty, if any, charged from them under the

impugned clause of the Policy.

With the aforesaid observations, all the petitions are disposed

of.

              (PUNEET GUPTA)                           (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                    JUDGE                                    JUDGE
JAMMU
31 .12.2024

Sanjeev                            Whether order is reportable:Yes

Source link

Jauvad Ali And 13 Others vs Rajya Uttar Pradesh Dwara Pramukh … on 16 June, 2025

Arif Khan vs The Union Of India on 12 June, 2025

Dr. Sachin Midha Aged About 40 Years Son … vs Sheetal Midha on 16 June, 2025

Sahindev vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025

Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandira vs Commissioner Of Income Tax …. … on 17 June, 2025

Jauvad Ali And 13 Others vs Rajya Uttar Pradesh Dwara Pramukh … on 16 June, 2025

Arif Khan vs The Union Of India on 12 June, 2025

Dr. Sachin Midha Aged About 40 Years Son … vs Sheetal Midha on 16 June, 2025

Sahindev vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025

Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandira vs Commissioner Of Income Tax …. … on 17 June, 2025

At Jammu vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir Through … on 31 December, 2024

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

At Jammu vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir Through … on 31 December, 2024

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Puneet Gupta

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

About us

Company

Top Stories

Now Is the Time to Think About Your Small-Business Success

Program Will Lend $10M to Detroit Minority Businesses

Kansas City Has a Massive Array of Big National Companies

Subscribe