Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985

9 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. PRACHI INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

2008 INSC 41728 March 2008Dismissed

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 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA & ANR.versusM/S. FUNSKOOL (INDIA) LTD. & ANR.

2010 INSC 5925 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S. PLEASANTIME PRODUCTS AND ANR.versusCOMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-I

2009 INSC 123012 November 2009Dismissed

Pleasantime Products manufactured the branded word game "Scrabble" and claimed it fell under sub‑heading 9503.00 (puzzles) of Chapter 95 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985, seeking exemption from excise duty. The Central Excise Department classified it as a board game under heading 95.04, levied duty and invoke

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA AND ANR.versusM/S. FUNSKOOL (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR.

2009 INSC 123212 November 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the CESTAT order that had classified three board games – Snake and Ladder, Monopoly and Scrabble/Upwards – as not falling under Heading 95.04 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985. The Supreme Court examined the criteria for distinguishing toys, puzzles and games

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAIversusM/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD.

2006 INSC 3089 May 2006Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs appealed against a tribunal order that held M/s Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd.'s polished ceramic tiles were not "glazed" and therefore not liable for differential excise duty. The assessee manufactures both polished (glossy) and unpolished tiles, initially classified under tari

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S. MATADOR FOAM AND ORS.

2005 INSC 105 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, manufacturers of vulcanised rubber products cut to the shape of vehicle seats, had classified their goods under Tariff Heading 40.08 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 175/1986. The assessing authority re‑classified the goods under Tariff Heading 94.01, demanded differential excise duty and t

M/S. O.K. PLAY (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-II, NEW DELHI

2005 INSC 634 February 2005Disposed off

OK Play India Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic water tanks and toys, pulverised LDPE and HDPE granules into moulding powder. The Central Excise Department issued show‑cause notices demanding duty for two periods, alleging that the conversion was a "manufacture" and that the powder was an excisable good. The Supreme Cour

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