Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957

30 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONGversusNORTH-EASTERN TOBACCO CO. LTD.

2002 INSC 49928 November 2002Dismissed

The North‑Eastern Tobacco Co. Ltd, after closing its earlier cigarette unit at Bangagarh under a disinvestment agreement, set up a new manufacturing unit at the Export Promotion Industrial Park in Amingaon in 1999 and sought exemption from central excise duty under the Exemption Notification dated 08‑07‑1999. The Centr

DINESH TEXTILESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT

2019 INSC 29428 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, traders of cotton fabrics and made‑ups, supplied raw material to over 70 job workers and cleared goods worth more than Rs 1.45 crore without paying excise duty. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging duty liability, arguing that under Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules the traders are to be tr

M/S JK SYNTHETICS AND ANR. ETC.versusCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ANR

1997 INSC 6928 January 1997Disposed off

J.K. Synthtics Ltd., a manufacturer of tyre‑cord fabric, claimed exemption from sales tax under a 1957 notification issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The State of Rajasthan later issued notifications in 1980 and 1981, the latter stating that "all the notifications" issued under Section 8(5)

STATE OF KERALAversusATTESEE (AGRO INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORPORATION)

1988 INSC 32927 October 1988Dismissed

The State of Kerala appealed against the Agro Industrial Trading Corporation, which claimed exemption from sales tax on PVC cloth under item 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The issue was whether the definition of "cotton fabrics" referred to in the Act, taken from the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, sh

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 40727 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Bajaj Auto Ltd., a manufacturing unit in Uttarakhand, was granted a ten‑year exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 50/2003‑C. The company, however, did not pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD), Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, which were demanded through a show‑cause not

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusORIENT FABRICS PVT. LTD.

2003 INSC 66925 November 2003Dismissed

The Collector of Central Excise assessed additional duty on Orient Fabrics for alleged mis‑disclosure and undervaluation of fabric, also ordered confiscation of 35 bales and imposed a penalty. The Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the Central Excise Act could not be

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAYversusMAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED

2002 INSC 40524 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the Tribunal’s order granting Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd. exemption from excise duty under Notification 109/1986 as amended. The company manufactures high‑fur fabrics (heading 60.01) and dries them by passing the fabric through a hot‑air stenter. The proviso of the noti

VIKRAM CEMENTversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2005 INSC 37924 August 2005Matter referred to larger bench

Vikram Cement, a cement manufacturer, claimed CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs (explosives, lubricating oil, welding electrodes) and capital goods (limestone crusher, mining equipment) used in its captive limestone mines adjacent to its factory. The department issued show‑cause notices rejecting the credit, arguin

GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4420 January 2005

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of luxury‑tax statutes enacted by Uttar Pradesh (1995), Andhra Pradesh (1987) and West Bengal (1994) which imposed tax on the supply of tobacco and other goods described as "luxuries". The central issue was whether Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule permit

M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALversusGOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) & ORS.

2022 INSC 97519 September 2022Disposed off

The appellant, Trimurthi Fragrances, challenged the levy of sales tax by Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu on pan masala containing tobacco and gutka, arguing that the product is covered by an entry in the First Schedule of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (ADE Act) and therefor

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 105519 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India had granted a ten‑year exemption from excise duty for certain goods, including pan masala and tobacco products, through a 2003 notification. In 2007 it issued a new notification withdrawing that exemption on the ground that the products were hazardous to health. Manufacturers such as Unicorn Industri

R.C. TOBACCO PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 43119 September 2005Dismissed

The petitioners, job‑workers manufacturing cigarettes under exemption notifications issued in 1999, were ordered by the High Court to receive refunds of excise duty. After the High Court upheld the refunds, Parliament enacted Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003, retrospectively withdrawing the exemption and authorisin

M/S HERO MOTOCORP LTDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 110017 October 2022Dismissed

The appellants, Hero Motocorp Ltd. and Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., relied on a 2003 Office Memorandum and notification that granted 100% excise duty exemption for ten years to industrial units in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. After the introduction of the GST regime, the Union of India rescinded those exemptions

M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-III, DELHI

2009 INSC 104717 August 2009Disposed off

Mis. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., a motor‑vehicle manufacturer, generated electricity in its plant using naphtha and diesel and sold a portion of the surplus to its joint ventures, vendors and the grid for a price. The company claimed CENVAT credit on the duty paid on the fuel used for electricity generation, arguing that elect

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABADversusM/S. GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.

2005 INSC 8017 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the exemption claimed by M/s Ginni Filaments Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing filament yarn, for items such as air‑conditioner sheets, tables and chairs. The assessee had obtained a CT‑3 certificate under Notification No. 123/81‑CE allowing removal of t

MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

1988 INSC 27914 September 1988Dismissed

Mahalaxmi Oil Mills and other assessees claimed that tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake were exempt from sales tax under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which exempts "tobacco and all its products". The State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the definition of "tobacco" in the Act, mirro

MIS. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.versusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GAUHATI & ORS.

2015 INSC 41714 May 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Mis. Dhrampal Satyapal Ltd., claimed exemption from excise duty under a 1999 notification for North‑Eastern industrial units, which was later withdrawn retrospectively by Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003. The Department issued recovery orders without a prior show‑cause notice, which the appellant arg

M/S. I.T.C. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 51210 September 2004

ITC Ltd, a cigarette manufacturer, printed the maximum retail price (MRP) on its packs as required by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Packaged Commodities Rules. The Revenue alleged that the printed MRP was false, that ITC under‑priced its cigarettes to evade excise duty, and imposed penalties. The Ce

YATINDRANATH SHUKLA AND ORS. KANPURversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR

1997 INSC 8039 December 1997Disposed off

The appellant-assessee, a manufacturer of chewing tobacco, challenged a Tribunal order that excluded the value of packing material when computing the assessable value of the goods and that used the net weight of tobacco (excluding packaging) to determine the value per kilogram for exemption under Notification No.35/79-

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IversusM/S BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD.

2007 INSC 8208 August 2007Dismissed

Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. operated a composite mill where yarn was spun and grey fabrics were woven but not further processed. Under Notification No. 14/2002‑CE, such grey fabrics are exempt from excise duty (nil rate) provided (i) duty on the yarn input is paid before claiming the exemption and (ii) no CENVAT

DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1980 INSC 1158 May 1980Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co., manufactured "rayon tyre cord fabric" and claimed exemption from sales tax under Item 18 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which referenced "rayon fabrics" as defined in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and Item 22 of the Central Exc

M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIESversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2019 INSC 13366 December 2019Dismissed

Unicorn Industries, a manufacturer in Sikkim, claimed that a 2003 exemption notification under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which exempted basic excise duty and certain additional duties, also covered the National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD), education cess and secondary/higher education cess imposed

EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1985 INSC 1246 May 1985Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether processes such as bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing and other treatments of cotton and man‑made fabrics constitute "manufacture" under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the 1980 amendment expanding the definition of manufacture is constitutionally valid. The Co

STATE OF BIHARversusBIHAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

1996 INSC 1946 February 1996Dismissed

The Bihar Legislature enacted the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, imposing a tax of up to 5% on scheduled goods entering any local area in the State. The Patna High Court struck down the Act on grounds that it violated Article 301 of the Constitution, was not

M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) AND ORS.

2023 INSC 4874 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether pan masala and gutkha, products containing betel nut and sometimes tobacco, could be taxed under various state sales‑tax statutes despite being listed as exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court analysed the classification of these products under the Central Excise Tari

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAYversusM/S KOHINOOR MILLS BOMBAY

1995 INSC 2464 April 1995Dismissed

The case concerned two composite textile mills that manufactured cotton yarn in their weaving departments and used it captive in their spinning departments to produce fabric. An exemption notification dated 18 June 1977 exempted such yarn from excise duty, but a later notification dated 15 July 1977 partially withdrew

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusM/S. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL ETC.

2005 INSC 4653 October 2005Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court examined whether manufacturers of chewing tobacco could claim input relief under exemption Notification No.121/94‑CE when they had not complied with the Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessees argued that the intended use of the intermediate product (kimam) was evident fro

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURversusJ.K. UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD.

2004 INSC 4963 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., a cement manufacturer, operated its own limestone mine and used explosives for blasting in the mine. It claimed CENVAT credit for the explosives under Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue argued that the explosives were not "inputs" because they were not used within the fact

GODAWAT PAN MASALA PRODUCTS I.P. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 4132 August 2004Case Allowed

The appellants, manufacturers of pan masala and gutka, challenged state notifications issued under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 that prohibited the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of these products in the interest of public health. The questions before the Supreme Court wer

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M.P.

2006 INSC 4811 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. operated an electrical and mechanical workshop at Korba to repair mining equipment for adjacent coal mines. The Central Government had declared the workshop a "mine" under Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952. The assessee claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 63/9

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search