Central Excise Act, 1944

The Supreme Court considered whether a show‑cause notice under Section 11‑A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be issued before the completion of the assessment proceedings. The appellants argued that a provisional assessment, being an order of assessment, sufficed for invoking Section 11‑A, while the respondents cont…

Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. installed storage units, kitchen counters, running counters and large reception tables as part of turnkey interior projects. The Central Excise authorities treated these items as "furniture" under Tariff Item 9403 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and levied excise duty. The company conte…

Liberty India, a partnership firm operating a small‑scale industrial undertaking, claimed a deduction under s.80‑18 of the Income‑Tax Act for profits arising from Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEP8) and duty‑drawback credits that were posted to its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding…

The respondent, Mis. Sri Ganganagar Bottling Co., a small‑scale industrial (SSI) unit, manufactured aerated water and affixed the brand name "Citra" belonging to M/s Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd., which was also an SSI unit eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93‑CE. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notic…

The assessee, M/s EMCO Ltd., manufactures transformers and pays central excise duty on the price at which it sells them to State Electricity Boards. The Revenue argued that the transaction value for duty purposes must include freight and transit‑insurance costs, contending that the place of removal was the buyer’s prem…

Mis RE manufactured electronic fan regulators under the brand "REIZ" since 1988, while its sister company Mis REPL, formed in 1993, manufactured electronic transformers using the same brand. Under Notification No. 1/93, a manufacturer using another's brand name is ineligible for small‑scale exemption. The Commissioner …

The Supreme Court examined whether offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962 are non‑cognizable and, if so, whether they are bailable. It held that Section 9A of the Excise Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act expressly deem the offences non‑cognizable, and that the statutes themselves,…

The appellants, manufacturers of chewing tobacco, used an intermediate product called "additive mixture" (kimam) in their production process. The Central Excise Department alleged that the kimam was clandestinely manufactured and cleared under sub‑headings 2404.49/2404.40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in cont…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the Tribunal's decision that the carbonless paper used by the respondent, Sundstrand Forms Ltd., in manufacturing computer stationery was exempt from duty. The respondent argued that the intermediate carbonless paper should be classified under sub‑headings 4901.…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the assessment of duty on pulp transferred by the respondent, Mis. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., to its sister unit for captive use in making paper, an exempted final product. The assessee had claimed MODVAT credit on inputs and paid duty on the cost price of pulp,…

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals filed by the Central Excise Commissioner against several manufacturers of industrial gases who charged customers for containers such as cylinders, canisters and tanners. The issue was whether these ancillary charges should be included in the "transaction value" for determin…

Jindal Drugs Ltd. imported cocoa butter and cocoa powder and also received the same from its Jammu unit, then affixed two additional labels on each carton at its Taloja plant before exporting the goods. The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the company's claim of CENVAT credit and export rebate, arguing that th…

The appellant‑assessee, Mis. Span Diagnostics Ltd., manufactures monoclonal antibodies (MABs), pregnancy test kits, and other diagnostic reagents. The Department classified these products under Chapter 30.05 or Chapter 38.22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, while the assessee claimed classification under Chapter…

Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. purchased naphtha from BPCL/IOCL in September-October 1996 and paid excise duty because it did not possess a CT‑2 certificate. After obtaining the certificate through an appeal, it sought a refund of the duty paid for that period. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim o…

The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay appealed against the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal's decision that the distillation and recrystallisation processes undertaken by Mis. S.D. Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. did not constitute "manufacture" for excise purposes. The Tribunal was divided: the technical…

Sansera Engineering Ltd, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported products in August‑October 2015 and paid excise duty. It claimed rebate of the duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in February 2017, but the claims were rejected as being beyond the one‑year limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the…

Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, claimed CENVAT credit on welding electrodes used for maintenance of its plant. The Excise authorities disallowed the credit, imposed a penalty and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, relying on earlier decisions that welding electrodes are not inputs. The appella…

M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. manufactured Vitamin A and, as an intermediate step, produced crude Vitamin A which it used internally to make animal feed supplements. The Central Excise authorities issued show‑cause notices demanding excise duty on this intermediate product, asserting it was excisable. The Commissione…

M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. manufactured chassis whose value depended on standard fitments. The price lists for November 1994 and April 1995 mistakenly recorded Engine No. 692 DI and Gear Box GBS 30 as standard, whereas the actual standard fitments were Engine No. 697 NA and Gear Box GBS 40. The Central…

The assessee, Nirmala Dyachem, manufactures a product called Domex Power Cleaner/Domex All round Home Cleaner and classified it under heading 38.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a disinfectant. The Revenue argued that the product should be placed under heading 34.02, which covers organic surface‑active agen…

Colfax Laboratories manufactured after‑shave lotions (ASL) under a licence for cosmetics. In 1985 it sought re‑classification of the product as a "medicinal preparation" to obtain a lower excise duty; the Excise Commissioner classified it as medicinal, a decision later challenged. The State issued notices demanding bal…

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 imposes a mandatory penalty for short levy or non‑levy of duty and whether mens rea is an essential element. The Court held that the provision creates a civil liability for breach of a statutory obligation and the penalty is mandatory, leav…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the Madras High Court’s order allowing M/s Addison & Co. Ltd. to obtain a refund of excise duty on turnover discounts claimed via credit notes. The key question was whether a refund under Section 11‑B(2) of the Central Excise Act is permissible when the duty has been …

The respondents, manufacturers of Fiat Uno cars, declared wholesale prices that were well below their manufacturing cost, claiming the price was the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging short levy and demanded differential duty, arguing that the pr…

Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding and two other construction firms were alleged by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, to be manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) instead of "mix concrete" and thus liable to excise duty under Chapter 3824.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue is…

The Union of India challenged the validity of Notification Nos.102/87‑CE and 103/87‑CE which granted exemption from excise duty on iron and steel scrap from ship‑breaking only to importers who had paid customs duty at Rs.1,400 per Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT). The respondent, N.S. Rathnam & Sons, had paid a lower c…

M/s Rollatainers Ltd owned two distinct factories – a Paper Board Factory in Shed No.1 and a Specialty Paper Factory in Shed No.3 – each with its own plant, staff, management and premises‑specific registration under Rule 174(3) of the Central Excise Rules. Both factories claimed the nil‑rate exemption under Notificatio…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, issued a show‑cause notice in 2000 alleging that Pepsi Foods Ltd had evaded excise duty on sales tax collected. Pepsi had earlier claimed a sales‑tax exemption which was rejected, paid excise duty on a reduced price, and later, while the exemption claim was pen…

Orient Ceramics & India Ltd imported two consignments of tiles and claimed they were unglazed porcelain tiles under tariff heading 6907.90, which is freely importable without a licence. Physical examination and tests by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) showed the tiles were glazed, which are classified und…

Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (RSWML) set up a process house for fabric processing and later leased it to other firms. The Central Excise Department alleged that the lease was a sham intended to shift valuation from the comparable‑goods method to the cost method and demanded differential duty. The Customs, …

Procter & Gamble manufactured detergent powder (AMS) in 25 kg bulk packs at its Bhopal plant and sent the powder to an independent job‑worker, IED, for repacking into 20 g and 30 g sachets. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the assessee had suppressed the true price of the product and, as the sachets…

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…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the classification of the product "Close‑Up Whitening" by the respondent, Global Health Care Products, which the respondent had placed under sub‑heading 3306.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as a dental cleaner. The Revenue argued that the product was a toothpast…

M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. had classified its benzene and toluene products under chapter 29 (sub‑heading 2902.00) and obtained approval in 1990. The Excise Department later sampled the products, obtained test reports showing purity below 96%, and re‑classified them under chapter 27 (sub‑headings 2707.10 and 2707.20)…

M/S. Prachi Industries, a small‑scale unit, purchased duty‑paid mild steel (MS) tubes classified under heading 73.06 and processed them by cutting to length and then subjecting them to swaging on a rotary machine fitted with various dies. The Revenue argued that the swaged product remained the same entry and therefore …

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…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the assessee's claim that sales tax collected under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme could be deducted from the assessable value for excise duty. The assessee relied on CBEC circular dated 12‑03‑1998, arguing that the retained 75% of sales tax was an inc…

The Supreme Court examined whether cigarettes manufactured before 1 March 1978 but removed from the factory after that date were liable to the special excise duty introduced by Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1978. The respondent, a tobacco manufacturer, argued that excise duties are levied at the time of manufacture, n…

The petitioners, manufacturers including Eicher Motors Ltd., challenged Rule 57F(4A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which mandated that MODVAT credit unutilised as on 16 March 1995 would lapse. They argued that the credit represented a vested right under the existing law and that Section 37 of the Central Excise Act…

The Assistant Collector of Customs appealed against Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. challenging the levy of a ten‑percent surcharge and the handling of a refund claim under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court examined whether the surcharge could be upheld and, more importantly, w…

The case concerned the classification of "soft‑serve" ice‑cream sold at McDonald's outlets. The revenue argued it fell under heading 21.05 (ice‑cream) of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985, while the assessee contended it should be placed under heading 04.04 (other dairy produce) or the residuary 2108.91. The Supr…

The appellants, both small‑scale industrial units, manufactured their own branded medicines and also performed job‑work for third parties, producing goods bearing the third parties' brand names. While they paid excise duty on the third‑party branded goods, they also claimed MODVAT/CENVAT credit on the inputs used. The …

M/s. Meridian Industries Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, manufactured cotton yarn using indigenous cotton and imported wax for coating. It claimed concessional excise duty under Notification No.8/97‑CE, which is available only to products made wholly from indigenous raw material. The central issue was whether…

The Central Excise Commissioners issued show‑cause notices to Apollo Tyres Ltd. and its directors/officers for alleged duty evasion and imposed penalties. Both the company and the officers appealed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, and while the appeals were pending, the Kar Vivad Samadh…

Mis Apex Traders, a manufacturer of aerated water, filed a declaration of assessable value under Rule 173‑C claiming deductions for equalized freight and rent on containers (ROC). The Assistant Commissioner allowed the ROC deduction but treated the factory‑gate price as the assessable value for freight, leading to the …

Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of aerated water, obtained concentrate from a Coca‑Cola subsidiary and collected rent on empty containers (ROC) from dealers while also receiving price‑support incentives in the form of credit notes from the concentrate supplier. The Central Excise Department contended th…

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…

The appellant, a small‑scale rubber products manufacturer, produced goods under its own "VIR" brand and also manufactured parts for automobile companies, marking those parts with the buyers' brand identifiers (e.g., "HM", "PAL"). It claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 1/93, which requires that the…

The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise filed a reference application under Section 35H(1) of the unamended Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking the High Court’s direction to refer a question of law to the Appellate Tribunal, but the application was filed after the statutory period of 180 days. The High Court dismiss…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the classification of four items manufactured by the respondent—rail assembly front seat, adjuster/assembly slider seat, YE‑2 rear back lock assembly and 1000 cc rear back lock assembly. The respondent had classified them under Chapter 8708.00 of the Central Exc…

Hindustan Poles Corporation imported duty‑paid electric‑resistant steel pipes and welded three pipes of different diameters together to form stepped transmission poles. The Central Excise authorities issued show‑cause notices asserting that this welding created a new product liable to excise under the residuary entry, …

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from show‑cause notices issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944 to G.T.C. Industries Ltd. and its alleged front company. A partner of the front company gave oral submissions before the Collector, who relied on those statements to pass an adverse adjudication order without …

The Collector of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corp. alleging that the cost of production of its refrigeration parts exceeded the wholesale price and sought recovery of differential excise duty. The wholesale price had been approved by the excise authorities and the buyer was not…

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Customs Act, 1962 and the arrest provisions in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arguing that offences under these statutes remain non‑cognizable and that authorized officers must obtain a magistrate's warrant, relying on the Om…

S.N.S. (Minerals) Ltd. and another challenged the excise authority's order quantifying duty and imposing a penalty on limestone chips. The High Court set aside the penalty but left the duty demand untouched. On appeal, the appellants argued that the High Court should also have struck down the duty demand under Section …

The Supreme Court examined whether administrative charges collected by a sugar factory under the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 are "other taxes" under section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore excluded from the assessable value of molasses. The Court held that the statutory pric…

The Supreme Court clarified the method of computing the assessable value of processed fabric for Central Excise duty. It held that the assessable value equals the value of the grey cloth in the processor's possession plus the value of the job‑work performed and the processor's manufacturing profit and expenses, i.e., t…

M/s. Monsanto Manufacture Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of ice‑cream, entered into a sourcing agreement with Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. and Unilever (later Hindustan Lever Ltd.) and declared the price of its product based on that agreement, paying excise duty accordingly. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑caus…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the CEGAT order that held Kwality Ice Cream Co. and its buyer, Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (later HLL), were not "related persons" under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The revenue argued that the sourcing agreement gave the buyer control ove…

The case concerned Vanasthali Textiles Industries Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, which claimed a partial excise duty exemption under Notification No. 8/97‑CE for products manufactured using imported carboxymethyl cellulose (a sizing material) and imported indigo dye. The central issue was whether these impor…

Mis Punjab Footwear Ltd. (appellant) manufactured footwear partly in its own factory and partly through Mis Stepwell Industries Ltd. under a licence agreement that allowed Stepwell's workers to operate machines and use electricity within the appellant's premises. The appellant claimed exemption from excise duty under N…

The case concerned the customs tariff classification of a signal decoder used by a cable operator to decode satellite signals received via a dish antenna. The Revenue (Commissioner of Customs) argued that the decoder should be classified under Entry 8528 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a "reception apparatus for tel…

M/s Aldec Corporation purchased aluminium sheets and sent them to two job processors, VPI and SREW, for slitting, re‑rolling and painting, after which Aldec sold the painted aluminium slats (PAS) for venetian blinds. The Central Excise Department, relying on earlier decisions that slitting and painting did not amount t…

The liquidator of ABG Shipyard sought release of goods stored in customs bonded warehouses without payment of customs duty, invoking the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued demand notices and sought to sell the goods under the Customs …

Kay Kay Industries claimed a deemed MODVAT credit of Rs.77,546 in March 2000 based on invoices from its input supplier, who later was found not to have paid full excise duty for the period covered. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice, disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the adjudicating …

The respondents, each owning no more than four powerlooms acquired from licensed manufacturers, claimed exemption from excise duty on cotton fabrics under Item 7 of the 1957 exemption notification. The Central Government had introduced a series of provisos, the third of which (effective 1 April 1961) stipulated that an…

Mis. Swan Mills Ltd., a textile manufacturer, was served with show‑cause notices for differential excise duty and challenged the assessment before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant filed a declaration under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1998 to avail the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) which…

Pragati Silicones Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic name plates for motor vehicles, sought classification of its products under headings 87.08 and 87.14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as "parts and accessories" of vehicles. The revenue department re‑classified the plates under heading 39.26 (other articles o…

The Union of India issued show‑cause notices under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, demanding service tax from Coastal Container Transporters Association and its members, classifying their activities as "cargo handling services". The respondents contended that their services fell under the "goods transport agency" …

Alpesh Na Vinchandra Shah and his brother were arrested for mis‑declaring import consignments and evading customs duty. Both were detained under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. They later applied for settlement under section 1278 of the Customs Act; the Settlement Commission accepted full duty payment, granted immuni…

The respondents, manufacturers of steel sheets, generate zinc dross and flux skimming as waste during the galvanisation process. The Revenue treated these residues as marketable commodities, issuing show‑cause notices for excise duty and penalty. The assessees argued that the residues are merely refuse, not goods withi…

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 …

The Madras Bar Association challenged the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, which sought to transfer appellate jurisdiction from High Courts to a newly created National Tax Tribunal (NTT) for deciding substantial questions of law in tax matters. The Supreme Court held that while Parliament…

Indoramasynthetics (I) Ltd manufactured polyester fibre and sold it to two classes of domestic buyers: those holding advance licences (who surrendered them) and ordinary buyers. By surrendering their licences, the buyers enabled the assessee to obtain an advance licence for intermediate supply, allowing duty‑free impor…

M/s Purolator India Ltd, a manufacturer of excisable filter elements, claimed deductions for cash discount, volume discount and sales tax while filing excise returns. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the cash‑discount deduction and affirmed duty on other items, leading to an appeal. The Supreme Court examine…

Escorts Ltd., a tractor manufacturer, paid excise duty on inputs used to produce parts and transferred those parts to another factory of the same company under Notification No. 217/86-CE. The parts were then used to manufacture tractors on which duty was paid. The Commissioner of Central Excise denied MODVAT credit, ar…

Amrit Paper, a manufacturer of paper, claimed exemption from central excise duty for March 2000 under Notification No. 6/2000‑CE. The company initially availed Modvat credit on input duty and cleared the goods at nil rate, but later reversed the credit, paid the duty and sought a refund of the credit. The Assistant Com…

M/s Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd. manufactures plastic nameplates, emblems and logos used on motor vehicles and claimed that these items should be classified under heading 87.08/87.14 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles, thereby qualifying for exemption under notification 15/94 as amended. The Revenue classified the…

The dispute concerned whether Adani Power Ltd. was entitled to an adjustment in its monthly tariff payments – including carrying costs – after the Ministry of Commerce and Industry withdrew SEZ duty and service‑tax exemptions in 2015‑16. The parties relied on Article 13 of their Power Purchase Agreements, which provide…

M/s. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, a manufacturer of the sweetened non‑alcoholic beverage Rooh Afza, disputed the classification of its product under the Central Excise Tariff, which led to a refund claim of Rs 3.74 crore. The refund was granted by the Assistant Commissioner on 16 Nov 2000, but no interest was paid. The…

Castrol India Ltd manufactured a blended lubricating oil called ‘Super TT’ with a flash point below 94°C and classified it under tariff heading 2710.99, claiming exemption under Notification 120/84‑CE which exempts blended or compounded lubricating oils. The Central Excise Department argued that the notification applie…

The appellant, a cooperative sugar factory, claimed a rebate under Central Excise Notification No. 135/83 CE based on the average sugar production during the three preceding lean years (1979‑80, 1980‑81, 1981‑82). It had produced sugar only in 1979‑80 and nil in the other two years. The Revenue argued that the two nil‑…

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa appealed the classification of 34 board‑game items manufactured by M/s Funskool (India) Ltd. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Mis. Pleasantime Products, held that three of the items—"Snake and Ladder", "Monopoly" and "Scrabble/Upwords"—fall under Chapter 95.0…

The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment bars a refund claim when excise duty was paid under protest. Birla Corp Ltd, a cement manufacturer, had paid duty under protest and later sought a refund, arguing that the duty was not passed on to customers. The CEGAT had held that the bar of unjust …

M.R.F. Ltd. manufactures tyres and uses grey tyre‑cord fabric that is dipped in a latex solution before being incorporated into tyres. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices alleging that the dipped tyre‑cord fabric was a separate excisable product falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 59.02…

The appellants, Indian public corporations engaged in manufacturing, imported technical drawings, designs and manuals from foreign collaborators on media such as paper and diskettes under technical collaboration agreements. The Customs Commissioner issued show‑cause notices under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act allegi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against the orders of the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts which allowed M/s Modipon Ltd. to claim a deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the balance amount in its Personal Ledger Account (PLA) representing advance deposits of central excise duty. The…

Nestle India Ltd, a 100% export‑oriented undertaking (EOU), manufactured instant tea wholly from indigenous raw materials and cleared it to two sister units under Notification 8/97‑CE and Notification 23/2003‑CE. The Commissioner issued a show‑cause notice asserting that, because the tea was captively consumed and not …

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals filed by M/s Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills and other assessees against the Commissioner of Central Excise. The core issues were whether Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules could levy interest and a mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount when Secti…

Escorts JCB Ltd., a manufacturer of excavators, sold its goods on an ex‑works basis at its Ballabgarh factory, handing over possession to the buyer's carrier. The Central Excise authorities, after a factory visit, observed that transit‑insurance and freight charges were not included in the declared value and, on the ba…

NCC Blue Water Products Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit, manufactured shrimp and shrimp seeds and sold them in the domestic tariff area (OTA) without the removal authorization of the Development Commissioner, contrary to the Exim Policy. The revenue issued a notice demanding excise duty under the proviso to Section 3…

The Commissioner of Central Excise (Pondicherry) challenged Acer India Ltd.'s practice of deducting the value of operational software from the assessable value of computers for central excise purposes. The Revenue argued that the software, being loaded in the hardware, formed part of the computer and its value should b…

Uniflex Cables Ltd., a manufacturer of insulated wires, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification 205/88 (as amended) on the ground that its cables were specially designed for wind‑mills. The Revenue authorities rejected the claim, asserting that the cables were neither parts nor specially designed …

Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd. manufactured paper‑based decorative laminated sheets and classified them under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner of Central Excise argued that the goods should fall under sub‑heading 4823.90 of Chapter 48 and that the exemption under Notification No. 135/89‑C…

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…

The appellants, M/s Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. and related companies, were investigated for alleged illegal manufacture and removal of excisable goods, leading to departmental adjudication orders imposing large duties and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Departmental order dated 31‑03‑2011 was set aside by the…

The case concerned whether Mis. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. could claim MODVAT credit under Rule 57A for Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) and furnace oil used to generate electricity that was captively consumed in the manufacture of cement and caustic soda. The Revenue argued that electricity generation is a separate, non‑exci…

Mangalam Organics Ltd. challenged the Central Government’s decision not to issue a notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which would have exempted it from excise duty on rosins and turpentine manufactured using the Bhatti process. The appellant claimed that a general practice of non‑levy exist…

The appellant, the Commissioner of Central Excise, sought recovery of an erroneous excise duty refund that had been granted to M/s Morarje... Gokuldas SPG & WVG Co. Ltd. The refund order (O‑I‑O) was later set aside in a proceeding under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, and the Revenue appealed the Tribunal’s deci…

The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 5 of the Hot‑Re‑rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, which allows the annual capacity of production (ACP) to be deemed equal to actual production for the 1996‑97 year, creates a legal fiction and is ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.…

The respondents, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., manufacture zinc by electrolysis using lead and aluminium sheets fitted with headers to form anodes and cathodes. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices for excise duty and penalty, asserting that the fitted sheets constitute a new product—electrodes—liable to duty. The Tribunal hel…

The Central Excise Commissioner ordered the confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of Rathi Ispat Ltd. (RIL) under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in 2007, even though that rule had been omitted from the statute by a 2000 notification. RIL had earlier mortgaged the same assets to Punjab Nati…

Mis. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. manufactured textile printing adhesives and claimed exemption under Notification No. 1/1993 (as amended) and Notification No. 16/1997. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices alleging that the company used a foreign logo, suppressing facts and evading duty, and impose…

The Supreme Court examined whether silver chloride, an intermediate product generated during Hindustan Zinc Ltd.'s zinc manufacturing process, is liable to excise duty. The Court reiterated that excise duty applies only when an item is both manufactured and commercially marketable. While the manufacturing test was sati…

The Central Excise Department levied large duty and penalty demands on Mis. Benara Automotives Pvt. Ltd. (BAPL) and Mis. Benara Valves Ltd. (BVL) for alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods. The appellants appealed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and sought a stay of the pre‑deposit …

The dispute concerned the classification of technical grade pesticides (TGP) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Prior to 1996, TGP and insecticides in bulk were placed in tariff heading 38.08. Amendments to Chapter 38 in 1996 and 1997 and a 1997 circular directed that such chemicals be classified under Chapters…

Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of rubber profiles, classified its products under sub‑heading 4008.29 of the Central Excise Tariff, attracting nil duty. The Revenue re‑classified them under sub‑heading 4016.19, alleging that the company had not disclosed post‑forming processes (notching, drilling, slitting) wh…

Indian Tool Manufacturers produced carbide "throw‑away" inserts that were initially classified under Tariff Item 68, later under Item 51A(iii) after an amendment, and subsequently re‑classified by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as Item 62 (Tool Tips). The manufacturer appealed the re‑classification, arguing …

Ayyappan Textiles Ltd., a manufacturer of cotton yarn under heading 52.03, was inspected on 30 August 1993 and two registers and a file of weekly test reports were seized. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the company had been producing yarn of higher counts (40s, 43s, 60s, 82s) tha…

The appellant, a manufacturer of coated fabrics, sold its products to wholesalers in polythene bags at the factory gate and additionally packed three rolls in hessian cloth for transport to up‑country customers. It claimed a refund of excise duty on the basis that the cost of the hessian cloth, being secondary packing,…

M/S K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. manufactured duplicate CDs on a job‑work basis using master tapes supplied by a distributor who owned the copyright. The distributor paid a lump‑sum royalty to the music producer and then sold the duplicated CDs to the market. The Revenue argued that the royalty value embedded in the master t…

Nirlon Ltd., a manufacturer of tyre cord yarn and fabric, filed price declarations under Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 using Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules, treating goods removed for captive consumption the same as those sold at the factory gate. The Excise Commissioner, relying on a cost accountan…

The appellant, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, challenged the CESTAT order that allowed Roofit Industries Ltd. to deduct freight, insurance and unloading charges from the assessable value of its pipe products. The revenue argued that the sale of goods occurred at the buyer's premises, making those charges p…

Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a cooperative sugar manufacturer, claimed a rebate under Notification No. 132/82 for excess sugar production in May‑September 1982, calculating average production over three years (including two years of nil output) as 11,009.67 quintals. The revenue authorities ignored the two…

The Revenue appealed against the finding that Shital International’s knitted pile fabric, processed by carding, knitting, shearing and back‑coating, was "unprocessed" and therefore attracted nil excise duty under Notification No. 06/2000‑CE and related notifications. The Supreme Court examined whether these processes a…

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., a manufacturer of kerosene, claimed a concessional excise duty rate under Notifications 5/98‑CE and 5/99‑CE, which were intended for kerosene used as an illuminant in oil‑burning lamps. The Department denied the claim, holding that the benefit was only for kerosene supplied to the Public Di…

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 4 and 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and its Packaged Commodities Rules. It held that Section 4A applies only when five conditions are satisfied: the goods are excisable, sold in packages, a statutory req…

Mis. Duncans Industries Ltd., a cigarette manufacturer, was served with two show‑cause notices covering the period July 1973‑February 1983, one by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and another by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. The Assistant Collector incorporated the material of the Delhi …

Jaypee Rewa Cement, a cement manufacturer, used explosives to mine limestone, an essential raw material. The explosives attracted excise duty, and the company claimed credit for this duty under Rule 57‑A of the Central Excise Rules, arguing that the explosives were inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the fina…

M/s Bilag Industries Ltd. (BIL) sold the pesticide Esbiothrin to Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd., a wholly‑owned subsidiary of AgrEvo SA (later Aventis CropScience SA). AgrEvo SA also held more than 51% of BIL’s share capital, making BIL its subsidiary. The revenue treated the sale as a transaction with a “related per…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against CEGAT orders that excluded the cost of wooden crates used to pack glass sheets from the assessable value. The respondents, Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., argued that the glass could be sold without such packing and that wooden crates were not covered by the Explan…

Mis. W.P.1.L. Ltd., a manufacturer of power driven pumps, challenged demand notices for excise duty on parts of pumps used in its own factory between 1 March and 21 April 1994. The appellant argued that such parts had been exempt from duty since 1978 and that the omission of this exemption in the consolidated Notificat…

D.C.L. Polyester Ltd., a manufacturer of polyester chips, claimed that chips spilled during bagging were "sweeping wastes" and should be classified under heading 39.15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting nil duty. The Revenue argued that the chips were primary forms of plastic under heading 39.07 and dem…

M/s Uniworth Textiles Ltd., an export‑oriented unit, imported furnace oil on behalf of its sister concern and claimed exemption under Notification No. 53/97‑Cus. The Customs Commissioner issued a show‑cause notice demanding duty and penalty more than six months after the import, invoking the proviso to Section 28 of th…

Frick India Ltd., a licensed manufacturer of air‑conditioning and refrigeration equipment, cleared cooling coils, condensers and compressors for cold‑storage and ice‑factory plants and paid excise duty under Tariff Item 29A(3). The company claimed a refund, arguing that these parts were not excisable under sub‑item (3)…

The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the valuation method used by Mis. S. Kumars Ltd. for processed grey fabric. The respondent sometimes processed fabric on its own account and sometimes on a job‑work basis for "merchant manufacturers". For 1‑Sept‑1985 to 28‑Feb‑1989 it valued the processed goods at the whole…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. claimed rebate of excise duty and, after the refund was sanctioned, sought interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the delay. The revenue argued that interest was payable only after three months from the date of the refund order, while the assessee contended that the pe…

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice alleging that Mis Frick India Ltd. had undervalued compressors and overvalued the accessories supplied separately, thereby evading excise duty. The assessee argued that the fly‑wheel, safety valve and filter were separate goods classifiable under their own t…

The All India Federation of Tax Practitioners challenged the levy of service tax on chartered accountants, cost accountants and architects under the Finance Acts of 1994 and 1998, arguing that such tax fell within State List Entry 60 (taxes on professions) and was barred by Article 276. The Supreme Court examined the c…

The Uttar Pradesh government imposed administrative charges on molasses sold by sugar factories under Section 8(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that these charges should be included in the assessable value of molasses under the Central Excise Act, 1944, …

Coastal Paper Ltd., a paper manufacturer using waste gunny bags and jute waste, claimed a concessional excise duty rate under Notification No. 22/94‑CE, which excludes paper whose pulp contains bamboo, hard wood, soft wood, reeds or "rags". The Revenue argued that the waste bags constitute "rags" and denied the exempti…

The appellant, a partnership engaged in manufacturing chewing tobacco, produced a compound called "kimam" in unregistered and unlicensed factories and claimed it was an intermediate, non‑marketable product not liable to excise duty. The Revenue Department contended that kimam was a distinct, identifiable, marketable pr…

M/s A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., a footwear manufacturer, sold shoes in bulk to military and paramilitary institutions and affixed MRP stickers to claim tax benefits under Notification No.12/2012‑CE and Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which are available only for retail sales. The Central Excise authorities i…

Ind‑Swift Laboratories Ltd., a bulk drug manufacturer, admitted that it had claimed CENVAT credit on fraudulent invoices between 2001 and 2006 and paid the assessed duty. The Settlement Commission, under Sections 32E and 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, settled the matter and imposed simple interest of 10% per annu…

Uttam Industries, a manufacturer of aluminium circles and utensils, claimed exemption under Central Excise Notification No.180/88‑CE as amended by Notification No.135/94‑CE, which is conditioned on the non‑availing of MODVAT credit on inputs. The department, the appellate authority and the Customs, Excise and Service T…

The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh issued a show‑cause notice to Mis. Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. demanding recovery of excise duty that had been set‑off under Notification No. 201/79 after the sellers of the inputs obtained a refund of duty paid. The assessee contended that the notice was ba…

Flash Laboratories Ltd, a toothpaste manufacturer, sold 60% of its output to its holding company Parle Products Ltd and the remaining 40% to another subsidiary, Parle Biscuits Ltd. The Central Excise authorities issued show‑cause notices alleging that the three entities were "related persons" under Section 4(4)(c) of t…

The Supreme Court examined whether mobile service providers (MSPs) could claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid for mobile towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) used in their networks. The dispute arose from conflicting decisions of the Bombay High Court, which held the towers and PFBs to be immovable property a…

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals concerning the classification of tobacco products as either ‘chewing tobacco’ (CET SH 2403 9910) or ‘zarda/jarda scented tobacco’ (CET SH 2403 9930) and the consequent duty liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue argued that the assessee deliberately re‑c…

M/s. Kap Cones, a manufacturer of paper cones, was penalised by the Commissioner of Central Excise for disallowing Cenvat credit and for other violations. The Committee of Chief Commissioners, after reviewing the Commissioner’s order, directed the Commissioner to file an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Ta…

H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd., a manufacturer of hydrazine, produced a by‑product called "denatured salt" and claimed it should be classified under heading 25.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which carries a nil duty rate. The Deputy Commissioner classified the product under heading 38.23 (now 38.24), a residuary hea…

The Supreme Court examined whether the price fixed under a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among oil marketing companies (OMCs) could be treated as the sole consideration for excise duty valuation under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It held that the MOU was primarily a supply‑ensuring arrangem…

The appellant, C.I.T., Mumbai, challenged the assessment that the twisting and texturising of partially oriented yarn (POY) did not constitute "manufacture" under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court examined expert testimony that POY is a semi‑finished yarn which, after undergoing a thermo‑mechanical pr…

M/s Motor Industries Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of nozzles, nozzle holders and injectors, was served a show‑cause notice demanding central excise duty on its nozzles and nozzle holders used in the assembly of injectors, the department alleging they were intermediate products under tariff heading 8409.00 and that the comp…

ITW Signode India Ltd., a manufacturer of box‑strappings from duty‑paid cold‑rolled steel strips, claimed that the product fell under tariff item 26AA(iii) and no further excise duty was payable. The Revenue argued that the product should be re‑classified under tariff item 68/7308.90 and that a short‑levy of duty could…

M/s Quippo Energy Ltd. imported gas generating sets (Gensets) and, to facilitate leasing, placed each Genset inside a steel container and added components such as a radiator, ventilation fan, air filter, oil tank, pipes, pumps, valve and silencer, creating a product it called a "Power Pack". The Revenue argued that thi…

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…

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…

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…

Nabha Power Ltd (NPL) and Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd (TSPL) entered into Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL) for a 700 MW coal‑fired project. They claimed that deemed export benefits under Paragraph 8.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009‑2014 were available at the bid cut‑of…

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals by the Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax against CESTAT orders that had remanded assessments of several plywood manufacturers for re‑adjudication. All the cases involved allegations that the assessee had under‑valued their excisable goods, thereby ev…

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay issued a show‑cause notice to M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. alleging short payment of excise duty on polyester filament yarn (POY) that was produced on bobbins of one kilogram or less and removed without duty payment. The Collector confirmed a demand of over Rs 1 crore, imposed…

The assessee, Action Construction Equipment Ltd., manufactured mobile cranes but used a dummy unit, ACE Industries, to claim exemption and evade excise duty. The adjudicating authority fixed an assessable value of Rs 26,63,400 and duty of Rs 4,10,144; the appellate authority, relying on the Supreme Court’s Maruti Udyog…

M/s Patanjali Foods Ltd. (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) challenged the customs department’s encashment of bank guarantees that were furnished as security under interim High Court orders. The company argued that such encashment could not be treated as "payment of duty" for purposes of a refund under Section 27 of…

The Supreme Court examined whether Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) was liable to pay service tax on payments made to its overseas group companies for seconded employees. The Court held that the overseas entities supplied manpower services, making the assessee the service recipient liable for service…

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices to Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd (CPC) demanding excise duty on Refinery Fuel Oil (RFO) used to produce naptha, sulphur and electricity. CPC, a government‑owned refinery declared a "deemed warehouse", argued that naptha and sulphur are petroleum products …

M/s Stangen Immuno Diagnostics, a small‑scale industrial unit, used the brand name “Stangen” on its diagnostic products and claimed exemption under Notification No. 175/86‑CE of the Central Excise Act. The Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the brand and logo belonged to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories…

Mis Crane Betel Nut Powder Works processed betel nuts by crushing them into small pieces and adding essential/non‑essential oils, menthol and sweetening agents. The company sought re‑classification of its product from Chapter 2107 (betel nut powder) to Chapter 0801.00 (betel nut powder known as supari) which carries ni…

Amrit Agro Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of various namkeens, claimed that roasted peanuts and moongfali masala mazedar fell under Heading 21.08 and were therefore exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. The Central Excise Department accepted the exemption for aloo bhujia and chholey masala but class…

M/s P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of patent and proprietary medicines, used the logo "P/B" assigned by M/s P & B Laboratories Ltd. The Central Excise authorities issued several show‑cause notices alleging that its distributor was a related person and that the logo was also used by the assig…

The case concerned whether pure coconut oil sold in small retail packs (5 ml‑2 L) should be classified as ‘edible oil’ under Heading 1513 of Chapter 15 or as ‘hair oil’ under Heading 3305 of Chapter 33 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents marketed the oil as edible oil, while th…

The Supreme Court examined whether manufacturers of excisable final products could claim exemption from excise duty on specified intermediate goods under Notification 121/94‑CE by relying on "intended use" and the doctrine of "substantial compliance" of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, despite not fulfilling the …

ITC Limited, a paper manufacturer, paid customs duty on waste paper after mistakenly claiming an exemption. It later filed a refund claim for duty paid between July 2001 and March 2002 under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The claim was rejected by the Assessment Committee, Commissioner of Appeals and the Customs, Excis…

The assessee, I.T.E.C. (P) Ltd., sold projectors to Mis. International Talkie Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and claimed exemption under Notification 71178. The Revenue issued a notice under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, alleging Mis. International was a "related person" and demanded excise duty and penalty for t…

The Commissioner of Central Excise held that Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (MACL) had created three front companies to evade excise duty on hydrogen gas, treating them as dummies and imposing duty, penalty and confiscation. The Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) overturned this, finding no in…

Ambica Industries, carrying on business in Lucknow, was assessed to central excise there and appealed to the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi, which has jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Maharashtra. The appellant filed a further appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise…

M/s M.P. Agencies, a distributor of the fabric whitener "Ujala Supreme" and the fabric stiffener "Ujala Stiff and Shine", appealed against the State of Kerala challenging the classification and tax rate under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The products are manufactured by Jyothy Laboratories by diluting acid vio…

Mis. Satnam Overseas Ltd. packaged a mixture of raw rice, dehydrated vegetables and spices, calling it "Rice and Spice", and the Central Excise authorities classified it under heading 2108 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, levying excise duty. The company contended that the process of mixing, heating and nitrogen…

Sangam Spinners Ltd. and other manufacturers used high‑speed diesel (HSD) oil in captive power plants to generate electricity for their factories and claimed credit of duty (MODVAT) under the Central Excise Rules. The authorities denied the credit, citing Notifications dated 1‑Mar‑1994 and 16‑Mar‑1995 that expressly ex…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the refund granted to Mis Allied Photographies India Ltd (the sole distributor of New India Industries Ltd) for excise duty paid by the manufacturer under protest. The Court examined whether duty paid under protest falls under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act or …

M/S Southern Motors, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, issued tax invoices for vehicle sales and later granted post‑sale discounts through credit notes, retaining only the net amount. The Assessing Authority disallowed deduction of these discounts from total turnover, insisting that a d…

Vikram Cement sought CENVAT credit for explosives used in quarrying limestone, which were later used in cement production, despite the explosives never entering its factory. The issue was whether the earlier Supreme Court decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement, which allowed MODVAT credit for such inputs, applied to the CENVAT…

The appellant Union of India sought recovery of MODVAT credit wrongfully claimed by Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills on high‑speed diesel (HSD) oil used as an input for electricity generation. The Central Government had withdrawn such credit by a 1995 notification and a 1997 trade notice, but the assessee still availed it. S…

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 …

Bhupindra Steels Ltd, a manufacturer of ingots, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 208/83, asserting that the "ends of M.S. Flats" used as inputs fell within sub‑item 8 of the notification. The Central Excise authorities rejected the claim; the Collector (Appeals) allowed it, but the Customs Exci…

The Supreme Court heard appeals by the Union of India against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order quashing excise duty notices served on Sonic Electrochem Ltd. for the plastic body of its electro‑mosquito repellent (EMR) and a "fragrant mat". The issues were whether the plastic body constituted "goods" under the Cent…

Ibex Gallagher Pvt. Ltd. assembles a solar electric power fencing system at various sites using a mix of duty‑paid and bought‑out components. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that the assembly creates a new product distinct from its parts, classifying it under tariff sub‑heading 8543.90 and levying excise duty, …

The State of Gujarat appealed against a Gujarat High Court order that had directed the GST authority to complete an adjudicatory process within eight weeks and had granted the respondents protection from arrest after they were served summons under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for interrogation. The respondents, fea…

Mis. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit manufacturing polyester yarn, sold its products against foreign exchange in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under permission granted by para 9.10(b) of the Export‑Import Policy (1997‑2002). The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice demanding differential duty, arg…

Noble Synth Ltd, a small-scale manufacturer of acrylic polymers, initially classified its products under SI No.42 of Notification No.53/88 (40% duty) and later claimed a clerical error to re‑classify them as emulsions under SI No.9 (20% duty). The revised classification was approved, but a show‑cause notice alleged col…

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL), a central government PSU, challenged show‑cause notices issued by the Ministry of Finance that sought reversal of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs that had been written off. The adjudicating authority rejected ECIL’s claim that the write‑off complied with AS‑2, and the matter …

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…

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs appealed against the classification of rubberised tyre cord fabric manufactured by Mis. CEA T Ltd., arguing that it should be taxed under tariff heading 59.02 rather than 59.06. The appellate court examined the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Exc…

The Central Excise Department appealed against M/s. CEAT Ltd. challenging the classification of dipped tyre cord fabric for excise duty. The Tribunal and the Commissioner had classified the fabric under specific tariff headings, but the Supreme Court examined whether it should fall under Tariff Heading 59.02 or 59.06 a…

The Commissioner of Customs issued a show‑cause notice to Indian Oil Corporation alleging that the company had misdeclared the value of imported petroleum products by including demurrage charges paid to ship owners. The Revenue demanded additional customs duty and penalty, but the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appe…

The appellants, Hewlett‑Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., imported all‑in‑one integrated desktop computers and self‑assessed them under tariff item 8471 50 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During customs examination the goods were re‑classified as tariff item 8471 30 10, a category for "portable" automatic data …

Suchitra Components Ltd. appealed against a Tribunal order that required it to pay excise duty from 1 March 1990. The appellant argued that, under the Central Excise Act, the liability should arise only from the date the show‑cause notice was issued on 29 August 1990. The Supreme Court referred to its recent decision i…

ACE Auto Components Ltd, a small‑scale industrial unit, manufactured clutch parts and affixed the well‑known brand name "TATA" alongside its own brand "ACE" on the goods supplied to Tata vehicles. It claimed exemption from central excise duty under SSI Notification Nos. 1/93‑CE and 16/97‑CE. The Revenue issued a show‑c…

Siddhartha Tubes Ltd manufactured MS pipes and subsequently galvanized them before clearing the finished product from its factory. The company argued that galvanization was not a manufacturing process and therefore its cost should not be added to the assessable value of the pipes. The Commissioner held that, although g…

Siddartha Tubes Ltd., a manufacturer of m.s./g.i. pipes, purchased sockets from the market and had them fitted by Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. The company claimed a deduction for the cost of the sockets and the service charges incurred in fitting them under Rule 173‑C of the Central Excise Rules. The departmen…

Sarabhai M. Chemicals, a bulk‑drug manufacturer, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 234/86 after obtaining certificates from the Drugs Controller. The Central Excise Department issued three show‑cause notices alleging that a portion of the sorbitol solution and vitamin C was sold to non‑pharmaceu…

The Commissioner of Customs appealed against a Tribunal order that had allowed Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. to claim duty exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus for three re‑imported consignments. The assessee had originally relied on Notification No. 158/95-Cus, executing separate bonds and agreeing to re‑export…

Bhupendra Steel (P) Ltd, a manufacturer of steel bars, rods and ingots, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No.208/83-CE as amended by Notifications 90/88-CE and 202/88-CE, asserting that its inputs were "pieces roughly shaped" as defined in tariff heading 72.08. The department held that the i…

Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of a computer‑based STD‑PCO unit, appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, challenging the inclusion of the value of a programmed EPROM in the assessable value of the unit and seeking exemption under Notification No.84/89 which exempts computer softw…

TVS Motors Ltd., a manufacturer of two‑wheeled vehicles, sold its cars to dealers who performed pre‑delivery inspection (PDI) and free after‑sales service (ASS) at their own cost. The Central Excise Department sought to include the costs of PDI and ASS in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, …

Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd., the holding company of Parle Exports Ltd. (PEL), manufactured soft‑drink flavours identified by code names that were developed by PEL. The appellant claimed Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notifications 175/86 and 1/93 for the years 1989‑1994, while the Revenue argued that the cleara…

Triveni Chemicals Ltd., a manufacturer of adhesive, deposited excise duty under protest and later obtained a classification that made the product exempt, prompting it to seek a refund of the duty paid. The initial refund application was rejected, but the appellate authority allowed the refund; however, no refund was su…

Shreeji Colour Chem Industries sought a refund of excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was repeatedly rejected before being allowed by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The assessee then applied for statutory interest on the delayed refund, and the Gujarat High Court granted inter…

The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice to Mis Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (BBPL) alleging fraudulent availing of Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93 in conspiracy with AMPL and PEL. The Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the proceedings, a decision upheld…

M/s Karnataka Agro Chemicals manufactured "multi micronutrient" compounds, registered as fertilizers, and the Central Excise Commissioner alleged that the company misdeclared the products as containing nitrogen to attract classification under "other fertilizers" (CHS 3105.00) and evade duty. The Tribunal held that even…