P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

K.C.P. Ltd. v. Government of A.P. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Aug 2015)

Collection of fee for preventing illegal activities of unrelated third parties a gambit for preventing manufacturers from exporting industrial alcohol

MANU/SC/0855/2015

Excise

Duty payable for grant of permit to export rectified spirit from the state, favouring buyers of rectified spirit in the state, is a tax not a fee. From that inference, the Supreme Court iterated that a duty, with the requirement of an indemnity bond, seeking to regulate, control and discourage export was ultra vires the state's jurisdiction. The Court, however, refrained from striking down the Andhra Pradesh Rectified Spirits Rules, 1971 in their entirety, given the need for preventing the illegal conversion of industrial alcohol to potable alcohol.

Relevant : Synthetics and Chemicals Limited v. State of UP MANU/SC/0595/1989

Tags : EXCISE   RECTIFIED ALCOHOL   DISCOURAGE EXPORT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved