Section 4 - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

30Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that central excise duty is leviable only on movable “goods.” The final assembled boiler, being an immovable plant, is not excisable. Consequently, the value of bought-out items delivered directly to the site cannot be included in the assessable value for duty computation. The extended limitation period for the show-cause notice was also held inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Lipi Boilers Ltd., entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture, and supply machinery for a steam generating plant, including a 50 TPH boiler. The boiler was manufactured and cleared from the factory in a Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition upon payment of central excise duty. Certain essential items, such as feed pumps and fans, were purchased duty-...

Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout

The Supreme Court held that under the AFC’s Staff Regulations, the gratuity ceiling for employees is linked to notifications issued by the State Government. Consequently, AFC employees are entitled to the enhanced gratuity limit prescribed by the Government of Assam, as the regulations incorporate such external ceilings for employee benefit. Facts Of The Case: The Assam Financial Corporation Limited (AFC) appealed against a High Court judgment favouring its retired employees. The employees, who retired between 2018–2019, had been paid gratuity under AFC’s internal regulations, which had a ceiling of Rs. 7 lakhs as per a 2012 office order. They contended that they were entitled to a higher gratuity ceiling as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was aligned with the enhanced...

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

The Supreme Court ruled that similarly situated landowners must receive equal compensation in land acquisition cases. It held that a prior judicial decision awarding a higher multiplier for identical orange trees constituted a "special circumstance," justifying the restoration of a 15x multiplier over a reduced 10x multiplier to prevent discriminatory treatment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellants, landowners from village Khanapur in Akola district, whose land was acquired by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in August 1995. Possession was taken in April 1996. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference to a civil court. In its 2011 award, the reference court gra...