Latest news with #IndianMadeForeignLiquor
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
How UP's liquor lottery system helped Yogi govt double revenue to Rs 50,000 crore in six years
Luck favored Akhand Pratap Dubey from Madhya Pradesh when he won ownership of a country liquor shop in Uttar Pradesh's Jhansi district through an online lottery held after seven years. Dubey beat 284 others for a small shop on the state border, a reflection of the high demand generated by Uttar Pradesh's revamped excise policy. The new policy and the lottery system helped the state double its liquor revenue to Rs 51,000 crore in 2024-25, compared to Rs 23,927 crore in 2018-19 before the pandemic. Lottery drives high demand for liquor shops The government held an online lottery in March-April 2024 for 27,308 liquor shops across four categories: country liquor, composite liquor (selling both beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor or IMFL), cannabis outlets, and model shops with seating arrangements. The lottery attracted 4,18,111 applications, with about 15 applicants per shop on average. The excise department collected Rs 2,000 crore from processing fees alone. The fees ranged from Rs 25,000 for cannabis shops to Rs 60,000 for model shops. Composite shops become most popular Composite liquor shops proved to be the most sought-after category. One outlet in Greater Noida received 265 applications. Excise commissioner Adarsh Singh said, 'It did bring down the number of standalone IMFL and beer shops, but also increased the density of outlets that serve both segments — the clientele for beer and that of IMFL.' The government shut 5,970 standalone beer shops and 6,563 IMFL shops, replacing them with 9,362 composite shops. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Recessão ou vibecessão? Franklin Templeton Brazil Leia mais Undo New entrants and experienced retailers compete UP excise minister Nitin Agarwal stated, 'An estimated 40% of these shops are owned by new entrants, while the remaining have been in this business from earlier.' He added, 'UP is at the top spot in the country when it comes to revenue collection through excise duty. The retail liquor business in UP has become extremely lucrative, and that is why we have witnessed increased participation in the lottery this time.' About 5.6% of applicants came from other states. Prohibition in Bihar benefits UP liquor sales The ban on alcohol in Bihar has also helped increase sales in UP border districts such as Kushinagar, Deoria, and Ghazipur. Sunil Singh, who runs a composite liquor shop in Kushinagar, said, 'Though overall business prospects of the composite shop and the sales they could generate would be known only after some time, the response so far has exceeded my expectations.' Estimates show that demand for country liquor and IMFL has nearly tripled in UP districts bordering Bihar since the prohibition began. Live Events Structural changes encourage new brands Manish Agarwal, managing director of Bareilly-based Superior Industries and a member of the All India Distillers' Association, said, 'The structural change in the way retail business is carried out in the state will help reach out to a larger number of patrons. The growing demand is encouraging stakeholders to come up with new brands.' (The article originally published in TOI)
Mint
6 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Beer Lovers Beware! Prices set to rise by up to 55% under new Haryana excise policy from THIS date
Beer lovers pay attention! In less than a month, beer prices in Haryana are rising, and in a sharp uptick. Come June 12, beer lovers in Haryana will have to pay a significantly more price if they want to drink the alcoholic beverage. The Haryana new excise policy brings a 55 per cent hike in Indian beer prices, according to a report by The Hindustan Times. For imported beers, the prices are going to rise by 45 per cent, as per the report. Meanwhile, the cost of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Imported Foreign Liquor (IFL) will rise by 15-20 per cent under the new excise policy. Livemint could not independently verify the details of the report. The new Haryana Excise Policy 2025-2027, set to be implemented on June 12, will see the prices of popular beer brands including Kingfisher, Carlsberg, Budweiser, and Hoegaarden rise sharply. Following the implementation of the new Haryana Excise Policy, the price of a 650ml bottle of Kingfisher Ultra will rise from ₹ 90 to ₹ 140. Imported beers such as Corona and Amstel, a pint of which costs ₹ 200, is set to increase to ₹ 290. Meanwhile, a 330 ml bottle of beers like Budweiser and Carlsberg will go up to ₹ 120 from ₹ 75, HT reported quoting officials. For a canned beer of 500 ml, which is currently priced at ₹ 90, the cost will go up by 45 per cent to ₹ 130. For alcohols like Absolut Vodka, the prices will increase from ₹ 1,200 for a 750ml bottle to ₹ 1,500. Meanwhile, a bottle of Glenlivet will jump from ₹ 3,200 to ₹ 3,800. Gurugram (West) deputy excise and taxation commissioner confirmed the development to Hindustan Times. 'Yes, there will be a 55 per cent hike on Indian beers and 45 per cent on imported ones. This is primarily to bring parity with neighbouring states and to promote Indian-made beer and liquor over imported alternatives,' the official was quoted as saying by the newspaper. He said that the excise department will focus on optimising revenue earned through alcohol sales. 'The excise department is also focusing on optimising revenue through fair pricing while reducing the consumption of foreign-labelled liquor,' Dudi said. 'With the increased license fee, it will be easier to achieve the targets,' he added.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
India-UK FTA will make Scotch whiskies more competitively priced: Pernod Ricard India
HighlightsPernod Ricard India announced that the implementation of the India-UK free trade agreement will reduce import duties on UK whisky and gin, leading to lower retail prices for premium Scotch whiskies in India. Under the trade agreement, India will reduce duties on UK whisky and gin from 150 percent to 75 percent, and further to 40 percent by the tenth year, benefiting Indian consumers. Pernod Ricard India stated that while the FTA will positively impact the pricing of imported liquor, it will have minimal effect on Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which remains at a significantly lower price point. Alcoholic beverage company Pernod Ricard India on Wednesday said a reduction in prices of imported liquor following the implementation of the India-UK free trade agreement (FTA) will lead to lower retail prices across most states. Terming the UK-India FTA as "a positive step forward for both the industry and consumers", Pernod Ricard India (PRI) said it will improve access to premium Scotch whiskies in the country. "Notably, the FTA is expected to improve access to premium Scotch whiskies by making them more competitively priced, as reductions in import duties on Bottled-in Origin products will translate into lower retail prices across most states," a PRI spokesperson told PTI. Under the trade pact, announced earlier this month, India will reduce duties on UK whisky and gin from 150 per cent to 75 per cent, and further to 40 per cent by the tenth year. PRI is the subsidiary of the French spirits maker Pernod Ricard. It leads the Indian market in terms of sales, followed by Diageo, which owns United Spirits Ltd. The company owns Chivas Regal and other Scotch whisky brands such as The Glenlivet, Royal Salute, Ballantine's etc. According to PRI, while the formal details of the UK-India FTA are still awaited, the agreement in principle marks a positive step forward for both the industry and consumers. However, PRI also added that it will have a minimum impact on the prices of IMFL (India Made Foreign Liquor). "These price reductions will benefit Indian consumers, while having minimal impact on Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which remains at a significantly lower price point," the spokesperson said. PRI also owns IMFL brands such as Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue, and Royal Stag through Seagram's. The Indian alchoBev (alcoholic beverage) industry players blend imported bulk scotch whisky with IMFL. Some home-grown players expect a decline in IMFL prices also. However, PRI said these price reductions will benefit Indian consumers, while having minimal impact on IMFL, which remains at a significantly lower price point. In India, retail prices of liquor are controlled by policies of respective state governments. They identify the import duty as a separate component of the retail selling price in their respective areas. "Once the final terms are officially announced, we will continue to assess the implications of the FTA as they come into effect," said PRI. Earlier British spirits makr Diageo, which owns brands such as Johnny Waker had said it expects a reduction of "high single digit" in consumer prices along with additional volume growth after implementation of the India-UK free trade agreement Pernod Ricard's global portfolio comprises over 200 premium brands, including 100 Pipers, Chivas Regal, The Glenlivet, Absolut, Havana Club and Jacob's Creek.
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
Tipplers feel pinch as liquor prices hiked in Puducherry after steep increase in excise duty
PUDUCHERRY: Tipplers in the Union Territory will now have to shell out more for their drink as liquor prices across all categories—Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), beer, and wine—have gone up, following a steep hike in Excise Duty (ED) and Additional Excise Duty (AED). The revised rates, notified by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management (Excise), came into effect on Wednesday. This is the first hike in excise duties since July 2019. As per the official notification, the ED for cheaper and ordinary IMFL brands (with a declared price below ₹600 per case) has been raised from ₹100 to ₹110 per proof litre. For medium and premium brands (priced at ₹600 or above per case), the ED has increased from ₹115 to ₹125 per proof litre. The ED on wine has risen from ₹25 to ₹30 per bulk litre, while for beer, the rate has gone up from ₹10 to ₹12 per bulk litre. AED slabs have also been revised with a rationalization of slabs. The new AED rates for IMFL range from ₹85 to ₹325 per proof litre. For beer, it ranges between ₹33 and ₹42 per bulk litre, while for wine, it spans from ₹50 to ₹145 per bulk litre.
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Rapped by Supreme Court in TASMAC case, ED only has itself to blame
The Supreme Court on May 22, while hearing a batch of petitions related to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) investigation into an alleged liquor scam in Tamil Nadu, came down heavily on the ED with respect to the mode and manner in which the said investigation was being carried out. The petitions were filed against the ED by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), which is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and vested with the exclusive privilege of wholesale supply of IMFL (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) and other liquor in the state. The Court, while issuing notice, was pleased to stay further proceedings qua TASMAC and also granted protection from any coercive steps to TASMAC and its officials. This order assumes significance as courts are usually reluctant to interfere with or stay ongoing high-profile investigations. The allegations, as culled out from multiple FIRs registered by the Tamil Nadu Police since 2017, are broadly that employees of TASMAC-operated shops allegedly collected amounts in excess of the MRP from customers while selling liquor, and further, that high-ranking TASMAC officials were being bribed to allow these shops to sell liquor at higher rates. These allegations were initially being investigated by the Tamil Nadu Police; however, the ED eventually entered the picture, given that the offences alleged in these state FIRs, namely, corruption, cheating, etc were 'scheduled offences,' the only prerequisite to invoke the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This armed the ED to parallelly investigate the money laundering aspect of the offence and, in the process, carry out extensive search and seizure operations, which became the subject matter of the said petitions. The bone of contention is a raid conducted by the ED on March 6 at the TASMAC Headquarters in Chennai, in purported exercise of powers under Section 17 of the PMLA. The raid went on for three days, totalling around 60 hours, and it has been alleged by employees and staff of TASMAC that during the course of the raid, the ED harassed and coerced them. It is alleged that employees were unlawfully confined for long hours, not provided with food or rest, denied communication with anyone, and that some were detained for the entirety of the 60 hours. Accordingly, writ petitions were filed before the Madras High Court on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC, seeking a declaration that the raid conducted by the ED was illegal and further seeking a declaration that the ED's investigation, without the consent of the State, violated the federal structure and the basic structure of the Constitution of India. It was also alleged that a large number of documents were indiscriminately copied and seized, and that digital devices of the company and its employees were cloned and retained, thereby violating the right to privacy of these individuals. The Madras High Court dismissed these writ petitions and upheld the ED's investigation and the validity of the said search and seizure carried out. It held that the allegations of harassment were not substantiated through any physical evidence and, therefore, could not be believed. It further stated that the records of the search proceedings incidentally created by the ED itself did not mention any instance of harassment and, therefore, no such harassment could be presumed to have taken place. It also held that the ED was well within its powers to conduct the search and that there was no violation of the federal structure. There was also a legal challenge to the search itself, in light of the mandate of Section 17 of the PMLA, which requires the existence of 'reasons to believe,' supported by 'material in possession,' to justify conducting a search in the first place. The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling in the Arvind Kejriwal case, held that the 'reasons to believe' under Section 19 of the PMLA which bears similarly worded provisions, must have a nexus with the 'material in possession'. The dictum of the Madras High Court is flawed on several counts and the contentions of TASMAC and its employees deserve consideration, as is evident from the Supreme Court's interim order. The issues raised before both the Supreme Court and the High Court are not only interlinked but also reflect the long-standing issue of duplicated and parallel investigations being carried out by state and central agencies (such as the ED, CBI, etc). On the issue of the alleged harassment, the High Court should not have relied so heavily on documents created by the ED to conclude that no harassment occurred. These search documents, such as panchnamas, are prepared by ED officials themselves and, by their very nature, would not contain any admission of misconduct. These concerns must also be understood in the context of the ED's inherently secretive style of operation. The ED often refuses to supply copies of seizure memos or reports prepared during searches. It is not even mandated to supply a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the very document that sets an investigation in motion. Furthermore, given that the Tamil Nadu Police has been investigating the alleged liquor scam since 2017, the ED's abrupt intervention and mass seizures not only undermine the federal structure but also derail the ongoing investigation. Due to its wide-ranging powers, the ED often dictates the manner and trajectory of the investigation, essentially positioning itself as a superior investigating agency. This can also demoralise state police forces from pursuing their work effectively, out of fear of conflict with the Central Government, even though the investigation of offences is essentially within the domain of the state as per the Constitution of India. Now, the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs Directorate of Enforcement held that 'reasons to believe' in Sections 17 and 19 of the PMLA must be cogent, evidence-based, and subject to judicial scrutiny. However, the High Court effectively diluted this standard in the context of Section 17, as it held that such a high threshold for 'reasons to believe,' as required for a valid arrest, was not applicable to search/raid proceedings. Yet, judicial review of such 'reasons to believe' is all the more essential in such cases, especially since the ED also has the power to record statements, and several TASMAC employees have complained of coercion and harassment. Scrutiny of this requirement would determine whether the search was genuinely warranted or merely a means of intimidation. Given the sweeping powers conferred by the PMLA, these procedural safeguards exist for a reason and must be scrupulously followed to ensure a balance between investigative efficacy and the protection of individual rights. In OPTO Circuit India Ltd. v Axis Bank & Others, the Supreme Court held that compliance with Section 17's mandate is essential and must be uniformly observed. The ED has appeared somewhat overzealous and trigger-happy in its recent investigation into TASMAC. There seemed to be no immediate urgency to conduct searches in the manner alleged by the TASMAC employees. This is underscored by the fact that the ED could have taken a more measured approach and sought assistance from TASMAC. Under Section 54(j) of the PMLA, the ED could have requested TASMAC's assistance in obtaining relevant records, as this provision allows it to seek cooperation from officers or corporate bodies established under central or state enactments. Moreover, the ED could have, based on available evidence, informed the Tamil Nadu Government of appropriate action under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. The very fact that these more cooperative options were bypassed in favour of a full-scale search and seizure justifies the criticism levelled against the ED. Unfortunately, the ED is now, perhaps, a victim of its own reputation where even genuine investigations tend to be sullied by allegations of malice and overreach. The writer is a lawyer practicing in Delhi
