Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise Act

28 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAIversusM/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS.

2018 INSC 64630 July 2018Reference answered

The case concerned the interpretation of Customs Notification No. 20/1999, under which the respondents claimed a concessional customs duty rate for imported vitamin E50 feed powder. The Customs department denied the benefit, classifying the goods under a higher duty heading, leading to a series of appeals up to the Sup

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHERversusTHE L.R.C.G. AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 81829 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat High Court, in a public‑interest litigation, directed the State to compensate trusts and institutions for religious places damaged in the 2002 communal riots and appointed special officers to assess claims. The State responded by framing an ex‑gratia scheme limiting assistance to Rs 50,000 per place, subjec

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALOREversusSRIKUMAR AGENCIES ETC. ETC.

2008 INSC 135527 November 2008Disposed off

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore filed appeals challenging several orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) that had disposed of cases by merely relying on earlier judgments without a detailed examination of the facts. The central issue was whether the printing on packagi

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTURversusM/S ARUNA STRAW BOARDS (P) LTD.

1999 INSC 36127 August 1999Dismissed

The respondents, M/s Aruna Straw Boards Ltd., manufactured single‑ply straw boards, a portion of which was cleared on payment of excise duty and the remainder was used in‑factory to produce multiple‑ply straw boards that were also cleared on duty. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that duty should be levi

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusJAINSON HOSIERY INDUSTRIES

1979 INSC 12827 July 1979Dismissed

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that granted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the existence of a statutory remedy under the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had erred in ex

M/S. PONDS INDIA LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

1997 INSC 6127 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Ponds India Ltd. challenged the collection of special excise duty on goods that were manufactured before 28 February 1988 but cleared after 1 March 1988. The Revenue argued that Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 made the goods liable to the duty levied under the Finance Act 1988. The Court held that specia

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusSUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA

2011 INSC 61526 August 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court order that quashed a seizure of sunglasses on the ground that they were not a "pre‑packed commodity" under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The issue was whether sunglasses (and similar items such as watches, phones, appliances) fall within t

PIECO ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICALS LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

1996 INSC 121224 October 1996Dismissed

Pieco Electronics manufactured plastic parts that fell under Entry 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff but were exempt from duty by Notification No. 68/71. The Finance Bill, 1982 proposed to amend Entry 15A(2) so that the parts would be classified under Entry 68 and become liable to excise duty, and the Bill contained

IMPRESSION PRINTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

2005 INSC 37724 August 2005Dismissed

Impression Prints, a manufacturer of printed bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases, claimed a nil duty exemption under Notification No. 65/87‑CE which applies to "made up textile articles" manufactured without the aid of power. The Revenue argued that the colour‑mixing and screen‑printing processes used power, and th

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODAversusM/S. COTSPUN LTD.

1999 INSC 43923 September 1999Dismissed

The assessee, COTSPUN Ltd., manufactured NES yarn and had its classification list approved under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Excise authorities later issued show‑cause notices to reopen the assessment for certain periods and re‑classified the yarn, demanding differential duty. The Assistant Collect

UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.versusM/S V.V.F LIMITED & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 34722 April 2020Disposed off

The Union of India issued an excise duty exemption for new industries in earthquake‑hit Kutch, promising a full cash/PLA refund. Subsequent notifications in 2008 limited the refund to a percentage based on actual value addition, citing tax‑evasion concerns. The original writ petitioners claimed the later notifications

HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 40721 July 1995Disposed off

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and others imported asbestos fibre, which they obtained by separating the fibre from its parent rock using manual and mechanical means, and paid customs duty under entry 25.01.32. They challenged the levy of additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the liability t

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.versusM/S. SAW PIPES LTD.

2023 INSC 37617 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against the Gujarat High Court's order that set aside the penalty and interest imposed on M/s. SAW PIPES Ltd. under Sections 45(6) and 47(4A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The assessee had paid tax at a 2% rate on the basis of a civil works classification, but the Assessing Officer l

MANICK CHAND PAUL & OTHERS ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1984 INSC 8217 April 1984Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by licensed gold dealers challenging several provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968 (as amended) and its associated rules on the grounds that they violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 302 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that sections 16(7), 52, 79 (and it

M/S. RANA GIRDERS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 54116 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (UPFC) seized the assets of a defaulting borrower under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and sold them at a public auction. M/s. Rana Girders Ltd., the highest bidder, purchased the land, building and plant‑machinery free from encumbrances, with a clause in

KEDIA AGGLOMERATED MARBLES LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2003 INSC 1214 January 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd. manufactures floor tiles marketed under the trade names “Marbella Agglomerated Marble” and “Marbellam Tiles” and classifies them under tariff heading 68.07. Notification No. 59/91‑CE dated 20‑Mar‑1990 exempts “mosaic tiles, i.e., tiles known commercially as mosaic tiles” in that heading.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LIMITED)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8139 December 2013Disposed off

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd challenged notices issued by the Drug Inspector after a price‑fixation notification under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995. The issue was whether the notified ceiling price became operative for all sales immediately, or whether manufacturers could continue to sell pre‑notificat

MEWAR POLYTEX LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 8669 December 2010Disposed off

Mewar PolytEx Ltd exported PP fabrics under the Advance Licensing Scheme and, in its AR‑4 declarations, stated that it would not claim Modvat credit. Later the company claimed Modvat credit on the indigenous inputs used for the export and also drew back counter‑vailing duty on imported inputs, thereby seeking a double

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusNEW TOBACCO CO.

1998 INSC 109 January 1998Dismissed

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against New Tobacco Co. challenging the company's claim that a Central Excise notification dated 30‑Nov‑1982 became effective only when it was made available to the public on 8‑Dec‑1982, not on the date of its printing in the Gazette. The company had paid duty at the lower rate

NATWAR TEXTILE PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 139 January 1995Disposed off

The Central Excise Authorities issued a show‑cause notice on 28 December 1983 alleging that Natwar Textile Processors had removed cotton fabrics worth Rs 62 crore without paying excise duty. The appellant repeatedly challenged the notice through writ petitions, Special Leave Petitions and appeals, many of which were wi

TOFAN SINGHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2013 INSC 7008 October 2013Matter referred to larger bench

Tofan Singh was convicted under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for allegedly trafficking 5.250 kg of heroin. The conviction rested primarily on a statement recorded by an investigating officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the appellant claimed was

M/S. STAR INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), RAIGAD

2015 INSC 7487 October 2015Dismissed

M/S. Star Industries imports roasted molybdenum ore concentrate for ferro‑alloy production and claims exemption from customs counter‑vailing duty under Notification No. 4/2006‑CE, which exempts "ores". The Customs Department contended that the imported material is a concentrate, not an ore, and therefore not covered by

ABAN LOYD CHILES OFFSHORE LIMITED AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MAHARASHTRA

2006 INSC 4927 August 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellants, contractors for ONGC, carried out offshore oil operations and moved goods between ONGC's rigs and the shore without payment of customs duty under a customs exemption. After ONGC shifted operations to Nhava Base, the Customs Department issued show‑cause notices alleging unauthorized loading, unloading an

COMMNR., CENTRAL EXCISE , BANGALOREversusM/S. MEYER HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 2827 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Excise Department had registered a case against Meyer Health Care on 19 September 1998. The respondent later obtained an assignment deed for the relevant trademark on 6 October 1998 and claimed exemption under the Excise Exemption Notification on that basis. The Tribunal held that the assignment deed entitl

M/S. JAYASWAL NECO LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2015 INSC 5486 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

JayashwalNECO Ltd., a manufacturer of pig iron, defaulted on excise duty payments, leading the Revenue to withdraw its fortnightly instalment facility under Rule 173G(1)(e) for two months and require payment per consignment by debit to the account current. During this period the assessee used Cenvat Credit to discharge

M/S. SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

2016 INSC 2444 March 2016Disposed off

MIS Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd, a manufacturer of knitted garments, purchased excise‑duty‑paid yarn but did not claim MODVAT credit and produced fabrics wholly consumed in garment production. Under the 2002 Union Budget, Notification Nos. 14/2002‑CE and 15/2002‑CE offered two schemes: a concessional duty rate for tho

HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2016 INSC 8462 September 2016Dismissed

Hindustan Lever Ltd., a tea manufacturer, claimed exemption from entry tax on packing materials used for tea under a 1993 notification and a reduced rate under a 1998 notification. The issue was whether packing material could be classified as "raw materials, component parts or inputs" within Entry 80 of Schedule I of t

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