CONSTITUTION BENCH QUASHES CESTAT EXCISE RULING
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in its unanimous judgment stated that the Thermax case was decided on the facts of that case and was not applicable in other case like the present one. The firm in this case, manufacturers of chewing tobacco products, claimed benefit as it maintained that their intermediate goods were captively consumed for manufacture of final goods. They argued that the court should consider the 'intended use' and 'substantial compliance' of requirements of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The court allowed the appeal of the excise authorities, rejecting the argument of the assessee firm stating that non-compliance of those conditions enumerated under various excise rules and non-furnishing of various statutory forms are fatal to the plea of substantial compliance and intended use.