Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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

30 judgments · newest first · showing 1–30

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 487Disposed 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 …

M/S HERO MOTOCORP LTDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 1100Dismissed

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 …

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 975Disposed 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 …

M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIESversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2019 INSC 1336Dismissed

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 …

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 1055Appeal(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 …

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 407Appeal(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 …

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

2019 INSC 294Dismissed

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 …

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

2009 INSC 1047Disposed 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 …

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

2007 INSC 820Dismissed

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 …

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

2006 INSC 481Appeal(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 …

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

2005 INSC 465Matter 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 …

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

2005 INSC 431Dismissed

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 …

VIKRAM CEMENTversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2005 INSC 379Matter 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 …

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

2005 INSC 80Appeal(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 …

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

2005 INSC 44

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 …

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

2004 INSC 512

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 …

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

2004 INSC 496Appeal(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 …

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

2004 INSC 413Case 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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusORIENT FABRICS PVT. LTD.

2003 INSC 669Dismissed

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 …

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

2002 INSC 499Dismissed

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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAYversusMAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED

2002 INSC 405Appeal(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 …

YATINDRANATH SHUKLA AND ORS. KANPURversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR

1997 INSC 803Disposed 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 …

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

1997 INSC 69Disposed 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 …

STATE OF BIHARversusBIHAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

1996 INSC 194Dismissed

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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAYversusM/S KOHINOOR MILLS BOMBAY

1995 INSC 246Dismissed

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 …

STATE OF KERALAversusATTESEE (AGRO INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORPORATION)

1988 INSC 329Dismissed

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 …

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

1988 INSC 279Dismissed

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 …

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

1985 INSC 124Disposed 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 …

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

1980 INSC 115Appeal(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 …