Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
275 judgments · newest first · showing 1–200
ITC Ltd., a manufacturer of packaging materials, challenged five Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued in 2008 that demanded differential excise duty, interest and penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The petitioners argued that the SCNs were barred by limitation, that the department had …
ITC Ltd., a manufacturer of packaging materials, challenged five Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued in 2008 that demanded differential excise duty, interest and penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The petitioners argued that the SCNs were barred by limitation, that the department had …
ITC Ltd., a manufacturer of packaging materials, challenged five Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued in 2008 that demanded differential excise duty, interest and penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The petitioners argued that the SCNs were barred by limitation, that the department had …
Lipi Boilers Ltd. entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture and supply a bagasse‑fired boiler in CKD condition, with several bought‑out components delivered directly to the buyer’s site. The revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the value of these bought‑out items should be …
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 …
M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. claimed Modvat credit on "Guide Cars" used to transport hot coke from its coke oven battery, arguing that the vehicles were components of the battery under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax …
M/S. Peacock Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic moulded furniture, claimed a refund of excise duty under Section 173L of the Central Excise Act for goods returned by its distributors. The Department, after a market survey, valued the returned goods at Rs.8‑10 per kg, treating them as scrap, …
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 …
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., a manufacturer of automobiles liable to excise duty, claimed deductions under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for a large unutilised MODVAT credit of Rs 69.93 crore and for sales tax recoverable amounting to Rs 3.08 crore for AY 1999‑2000. The Assessing Officer, the …
The appellant, Bombay Dyeing, manufactured cotton and man‑made fabrics and claimed that excise duty was not payable on yarn processed in its composite mills, seeking interim relief by executing Form B‑13 bonds under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. The Delhi High Court, referencing Rohit Mills, …
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 …
The Supreme Court was asked to decide the validity of Rule 5 of the 1997 Central Excise Rules, which was challenged on the grounds of being ultra vires of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench, however, diverted attention to a …
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 …
The appellant, a Central Excise Superintendent, filed a complaint alleging that Reliance Industries Ltd. evaded excise duty by taking credit without complying with Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After Rule 56A was omitted by a 1994 notification, the respondent sought discharge, but the …
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 …
MIS STESALIT LIMITED, a manufacturer of railway parts, used copper coils for captive consumption in upgrading smoothing reactors without paying excise duty or filing the required declaration under Rule 173‑C. The adjudicating authority demanded unpaid duty and imposed a penalty of Rs 2,06,000 under …
Mis. Ispat Industries Ltd (IIL) and its sister concern Mis. Ispat Metallics Industries Ltd (IMIL) jointly procured iron ore pellets under a tripartite agreement with the supplier. IIL availed CENVAT credit on the entire quantity and later transferred the pellets to IMIL, reversing the credit and …
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 Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise challenged M/s Ispat Industries for allegedly evading excise duty by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal and including freight and transit‑insurance charges in the assessable value for the period 28‑09‑1996 to 31‑03‑2003. The Court …
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 …
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 …
The assessees, Pennar Industries Ltd., imported hot‑rolled non‑alloy steel raw material duty‑free under Notification No. 30/1997 of the DEEC scheme, subject to an export obligation. They did not export the finished goods themselves but arranged third‑party exports after the DGFT amended the licence …
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 & …
The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd (IPCL) demanding the full 16% excise duty on its C‑4 Raffinate, classifying it as butylene under heading 2711.12. IPCL contended that the product, a liquefied petroleum gas, fell under the partial …
Servo‑Med Industries bought bulk disposable syringes and needles, sterilised them, packed them in branded pouches and sold them. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice demanding additional excise duty, contending that sterilisation transformed the articles into a new commodity. The …
The respondent, M/s Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., manufactures tempered and laminated safety glass for automobiles and claimed MODVAT credit on float glass raw material under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue Department issued show‑cause notices alleging that the credit was …
Uttam Steel Ltd exported galvanized steel sheets in May‑June 1999 and was required to claim a rebate of excise duty under Section 118 (then Section 11B) of the Central Excise Act within six months of shipment. The company filed its rebate applications on 28 December 1999, beyond the six‑month limit …
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 …
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, …
Jayaswal NECO Ltd., a pig‑iron manufacturer, claimed MODVAT credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules for railway‑track material installed inside its plant to transport hot metal and raw materials. The Commissioner rejected the claim, holding that the tracks were not "capital goods" within …
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd purchased spare parts such as bumpers and grills, availed MODVAT credit, and subjected them to electro‑deposition (ED) coating before removing them from the factory for home consumption. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the value addition …
The Union of India appealed against Hindustan Zinc Ltd. challenging the company's claim of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs used to produce sulphuric acid and other chemicals that were cleared to fertilizer plants at nil duty. The issue was whether Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, which mandates …
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 …
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 …
Thana Singh, an undertrial accused of an offence under the NDPS Act, had been detained for over twelve years without trial despite repeated bail refusals. The Supreme Court examined whether such prolonged detention violated the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on …
The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order that quashed a differential excise duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s Food & Healthcare Specialities (the assessee) and its partner Mis Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. (Heinz). The assessee …
M/s Flex Engineering Ltd. manufactures custom automatic form‑fill and seal (F&S) machines and claimed Modvat credit for flexible laminated plastic film and poly‑paper used to test each machine before delivery. The revenue authorities rejected the claim, holding that testing is a post‑manufacture …
The Supreme Court examined two sets of appeals by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. seeking exemption from excise duty on Reduced Crude Oil (RCO) and Naphtha under separate exemption notifications. The Court held that the proviso in each notification required satisfaction of two conditions: proof of the …
Mis Essel Propack Ltd. manufactured plastic tubes and fitted plastic caps supplied free of cost by its customer, Colgate, before the tubes left its factory. The Commissioner of Central Excise treated the value of the caps as part of the assessable value of the tubes and levied excise duty, penalty …
The respondents, manufacturers of textile fabrics, were found to have cleared goods without paying excise duty and were served a show‑cause notice on 6 January 1999. They sought relief under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which allowed settlement of tax arrears quantified or notified on or …
Grasim Industries, a manufacturer of white cement, repaired its plant machinery between 1995 and 1999, generating metal scrap and iron waste. The revenue authorities demanded excise duty and penalties on the scrap, treating it as an excisable good under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that …
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 …
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 …
Saraswati Sugar Mills, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses, fabricated iron‑and‑steel structures in its own factory to support newly installed sugar‑processing machinery and claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 67/95‑CE, which exempts "capital goods" defined in Rule 570 of the …
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 …
Hans Steel Rolling Mill, a manufacturer of steel products, opted for the compound levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and paid duty as per Rule 96ZP. The Commissioner initially fixed its annual capacity at 3355 MT, later revised to 1890 MT after the mill altered its parameters. …
The appellant, a manufacturer of electronic equipment, fabricated testing machines worth Rs 31.27 lacs to test its own products and claimed they were for captive consumption and R&D, not liable to excise duty. The department issued a show‑cause notice and, after the appellant’s admissions in its …
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 …
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, …
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 …
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 …
Aurangabad Electricals Ltd., a manufacturer of magneto assemblies, was issued a show‑cause notice alleging that it had undervalued inputs purchased from Bajaj Auto, thereby evading central excise duty. The adjudicating commissioner levied differential duty of Rs.84.27 lakh and a penalty of Rs.69.72 …
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 …
The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the Tribunal’s order that allowed Mis. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. to claim MODVAT credit on steel plates and M.S. channels used to fabricate a chimney for a diesel generating set. The issue was whether these items qualified as …
Madras Cements Ltd., a cement manufacturer, claimed Modvat credit for certain items it described as components, spares and accessories used in its mining operations during November‑December 1999. The Revenue argued that the items were not capital goods under Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules and …
Bata India Ltd., a footwear manufacturer, produced an unvulcanised sandwiched fabric assembly that it used internally as an intermediate material for making shoe uppers. The Commissioner of Central Excise treated this intermediate product as excisable "goods" under s.2(d) of the Central Excise Act, …
The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Ltd. for disallowing CENVAT credit on Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) used as fuel in producing steam and electricity that was employed in the manufacture of exempted fertilizers. The key question was whether Rule …
Kushal Fertilisers Ltd, a manufacturer of MS conduit pipes, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No.202/88 but failed to obtain a licence or file a declaration under Rule 174. The Commissioner issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11A and Rule 209A alleging that the …
The appellant, a customs preventive authority, challenged the exemption granted to M/s Malwa Industries Ltd under Notification No. 4/2006‑CE dated 1 March 2006, which provided a nil rate of additional duty on certain imported goods used in the same factory. The issue was whether the phrase “same …
MIS. India Cine Agencies appealed against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, contending that the conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic film into smaller rolls constituted manufacture/production under Sections 32AB, 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore qualified for a …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice on 18 January 1999 demanding differential excise duty and penalties from India Thermit Corporation Ltd. (ITCL) and its subsidiary Asiatic Thermics Ltd. (ATL) for alleged mis‑classification, suppression of facts and undervaluation of …
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 …
The assessee, Dugar Tetenal India Ltd., cleared photographic chemicals under the brand name “Tetenal” claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86‑CE of the Central Excise Act. Investigation revealed that the brand belonged to a German collaborator, not the assessee, and that the assessee had …
The respondent, Vinayaga Body Building Industry Ltd, manufactured motor cabs on duty‑paid chassis with a seating capacity of 12 passengers plus a driver. The chassis were invoiced by the manufacturer under sub‑heading 8706.29, but the Revenue classified the completed cabs under sub‑heading 8702.10, …
The case concerned a group of platform mazdoor who had worked for the Assistant Salt Commissioner for periods ranging from ten to thirty years and claimed regularisation after completing more than 240 days of work per year. The department argued that the workers were engaged on daily wages on behalf …
M/s. Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. bought a 'Loadall' material handling equipment from its manufacturer, Mis. Escorts JCB Ltd., which had classified the item under tariff heading 84.29 and paid excise duty accordingly. The purchaser claimed MODVAT credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, …
The assessee, Mis. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd., operated a distillery that produced ethyl alcohol denatured (SDS) and a chemical factory that consumed the SDS for manufacturing specified chemicals. The assessee valued the transferred SDS on a costing basis under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise …
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 …
Mis Modipon Fibre Company, a manufacturer of nylon and polyester yarn, cleared its yarn to depots including Surat in Gujarat. A Gujarat notification of 19‑Oct‑1993 exempted yarn sold to special manufacturers in backward areas, allowing a turnover tax (TOT) rate of 0.5% instead of the normal 2%. The …
The Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India (the appellant) floated a tender for gumming and super‑calendaring of stamp base paper, which was awarded to Gandhi Industrial Corporation (the respondent). The supply order dated 31 May 1995 incorporated a clause that any MODVAT credit availed …
M/s Wimco Ltd., a manufacturer of printed paper board boxes, sold waste/scrap/parings generated during production without filing a classification list under Rule 173B or issuing invoices under Rule 52A. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice and demanded excise duty of Rs 23.20 million with an equal …
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 …
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 …
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, …
Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills challenged the recovery of excise duty and penalty on the ground that bars and rods made from ship‑breaking scrap were exempt under Notification No.101/87‑CE dated 27 March 1987. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the amendment, communicated through a circular …
The appellant, HMT Ltd., a manufacturer of dairy machinery, classified its machines such as pasteurizers, chillers, pumps, separators and butter packing machines under Chapter 84.34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The revenue authorities issued show‑cause notices alleging mis‑classification …
Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd imported two generator sets, one of which was received on 24 Oct 1998 but not installed until after 1 Apr 2000. At the time of receipt Rule 57Q(3) of the Central Excise Rules applied, allowing up to 75% credit, but the Rules were amended on 1 Apr 2000 by Rule 57AC which …
Larsen & Tubro Ltd entered into a bridge‑construction contract for the Konkan Railway and manufactured pre‑stressed concrete (PSC) girders without registering under the Central Excise Act. A first show‑cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 11IA demanding excise duty for March 1993‑December 1994 …
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 …
The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged Home Ashok Leyland Ltd's claim of MODVAT credit for differential duty paid on inputs received in 1986‑87 and utilized in August‑December 1987. The revenue department argued that an amendment to Rule 57E, effective 15‑April‑1987, operated …
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 …
The respondents, manufacturers of brass sanitary fittings, used the stylised brand name "ARK" belonging to Mis Arkson Pvt Ltd, a trader, while claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE for small scale units. The Revenue argued that the exemption was unavailable because the brand name of …
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 …
The respondent, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., manufactured a hair oil called "Alma Lio" and initially classified it as an Ayurvedic medicament under SH 3003.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the product should be …
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 …
Allied Air‑Conditioning Corp manufactured package‑type air conditioners that were cleared in a knocked‑down condition and assembled on site. The Commissioner of Central Excise alleged duty evasion and invoked the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11(A) of the Central Excise …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged Carrier Aircon Ltd's classification of its chillers under tariff heading 84.18 (refrigerating or freezing equipment) instead of heading 84.15 (air‑conditioning machines). The Revenue argued that because more than 90% of the chillers were used as integral …
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 …
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 …
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 Central Excise Tribunal held that Lifelong Appliances Ltd. had complied with the requirement of not availing MODVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods that are exempt from excise duty. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the case to be covered by Rule 57-CC of the Central Excise …
M/s North West Switchgear Ltd and M/s Kesharbai Electronics manufactured fan regulators and classified them under sub‑heading 8414.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, claiming they are electric fans. The revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging short payment of duty, arguing that the …
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 …
Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd., a manufacturer of hydrochloric acid, claimed credit of excise duty on naphthalene under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, despite a 1986 notification that excluded Chapter 27 inputs from such credit. After a show‑cause notice, the company sought to return …
Mis. Compack Pvt. Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of cardboard containers, claimed exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 67/82‑CE, having paid duty on the base paper component but availing MODVAT credit on a plastic‑coated paper layer. The Revenue argued that the exemption was available …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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, …
Vinay Solvent Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) manufactured processed fixed vegetable oil on a job‑work basis for Vijay Oil Mill and claimed exemption under Notification No. 262/86‑CE, which exempts such oil if the manufacturer produces a certificate from a Deputy Director of the …
The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against a judgment of the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) which had allowed Mis. Grasim Industries Ltd., a subsidiary, to claim exemption under Notification No. 5/98‑CE. The subsidiary printed on its cement bags the …
Channy Enterprises operates two hot‑rolled steel mills, each equipped with its own reheating furnace. After installing a second furnace (with a single motor that prevents simultaneous operation), the Commissioner, relying on the 26‑February‑1998 circular, fixed the unit’s Annual Capacity of …
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 …
The assessee, Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd., manufactured glass bottles that were normally delivered loose at the factory gate, with buyers optionally requesting packing using durable, returnable containers. The Revenue issued numerous show‑cause notices demanding duty on the packing …
M/S. Sahakari Khano Udyog Mandal Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, claimed a refund of excise duty on excess sugar production under Notification No. 257/76 and Notification No. 108/78. The claim was filed after the six‑month period prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and …
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. manufactured parts of locomotive wagons and rolling stock at its Growth Shop in Adityapur and transferred them to its main plant in Jamshedpur for repair and maintenance of transport equipment used within the factory. The assessee claimed exemption under Notification No. …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The appellant, a small‑scale manufacturer of gear boxes and related components, opted for the MODVAT scheme in 1986‑87 and 1987‑88 and claimed input credit on iron and steel inputs. After obtaining a classification list, it cleared its finished products at a concessional duty rate under Notification …
The respondents, Mis Emkay Investments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Plyking, manufactured plywood under their own brand “Pelican” but also affixed the registered logo “MERINO”, owned by the large‑scale manufacturer M/s Merinoply and Chemicals Ltd., on the same goods. The Commissioner of Central Excise denied …
Mis. Kores India Ltd. bought jumbo rolls of typewriter/telex ribbons, cut them into standard lengths (10 m and 5 m) and wound them onto metal spools for sale. The assessee argued that this was merely processing, not manufacturing, and that excise duty had already been paid on the jumbo rolls. The …
The appeal before the Supreme Court concerned the method of calculating the cost of production for excisable products under the Central Excise Act. Two questions were posed: whether excise duty paid on raw material, if modvatted, should be included in the cost of production, and whether the profit …
Escorts Ltd. challenged a demand under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, based on Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, after a show‑cause notice alleging contravention of the Excise Rules. The tribunal, relying on Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Collector of Central …
Essar Oil Ltd. imported plant and machinery stored in a private bonded warehouse and, fearing a budgetary duty increase, issued a cheque on 25‑Feb‑1999 declaring sufficient funds despite knowing the funds were unavailable. The cheque was presented on 27‑Feb‑1999, returned unpaid, and only honoured …
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 …
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 …
Eagle Flask Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of plastic insulated wares and vacuum flasks, claimed exemption from central excise duty and licensing control under Notification 11/88 (NT) CE dated 15‑04‑1988 and Notification 53/88, which exempted certain plastic items. The company failed to file the …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The respondents, Alnoori Tobacco Products, were engaged in manufacturing tobacco powder and were served with show‑cause notices alleging that the product fell under tariff sub‑heading 2404.90 (manufactured tobacco) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their appeals before the Collector of Central …
Mentha & Allied Products Ltd manufactured menthol under a licence granted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 31188‑CE, which exempts "bulk drugs" as defined in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. The Central Excise Collector …
U.C. Bhandari, a manufacturer of water‑proof fabrics, appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise, challenging the classification of its products under Tariff Heading 52.07 (cotton fabrics water‑proofed) instead of Heading 59.06 (impregnated, coated fabrics). The Tribunal had held that the …
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 …
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 …
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 …
M.R.F. Ltd., a manufacturer of vulcanising solution, was initially classified under sub‑heading 4006.90 (15% duty) which was approved by the Revenue Department. The Assistant Collector later directed re‑classification under sub‑heading 4005.00 (40% duty) and demanded payment of differential duty for …
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 …
The appellant, a yarn manufacturing firm, produced "Taspa" (fancy) yarn by a doubling/multifolding process and claimed exemption from excise duty under notifications for doubled yarns. The Collector of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice, demanded duty and imposed a penalty, classifying the …
Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of plywood and related products, claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86 for inputs (glue, UF resin, wood veneer) while its final products were already exempt under Notification No. 175/86 up to an aggregate value of Rs 20 lakh. The …
The Collector of Central Excise appealed against Mis. Universal Electrical Industries, a small‑scale manufacturer of electric appliances, seeking to deny the exemption under Notification No. 175/1986. The issue was how to compute the aggregate value of clearances for the exemption, specifically …
The respondent, a manufacturer of cooling towers, applied for registration as a small‑scale industry on 3 December 1986 but the application remained pending. A second application was filed in February 1988 and permanent registration was granted on 31 March 1988. The dispute centred on whether the …
Amco Batteries Ltd., a manufacturer of lead‑acid batteries, obtained lead ingots from various sources, including job workers who reclaimed lead from waste and scrap sent by Amco. The waste and scrap were claimed to be exempt from excise duty under Notification 186/84‑CE (as amended by 246/87‑CE). …
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 …
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 …
The Supreme Court examined whether a printed cigarette packet falls under “other packing containers” or “boxes” in Tariff Item No.17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and consequently whether Exemption Notification No.66/82 (dated 28‑Feb‑1982) applies. The Revenue argued that the packet is a …
T.N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals obtained exemption under Notification No. 116/69 for its drug Darzamol Injection, which contains Metronidazole and Dextrose. The Revenue later alleged that Dextrose, not being a pharmaceutical necessity or therapeutically inert, was suppressed in the classification list, …
Easland Combines, a small‑scale manufacturer, had its classification list approved and claimed exemption under a notification. The Central Excise authorities later issued a show‑cause notice demanding differential duty, alleging a willful misstatement regarding its SSI registration. The Tribunal …
I.T.C. Ltd., a cigarette manufacturer, was served with show‑cause notices for removing 20 sticks from each machine daily as samples for quality‑control testing, without paying excise duty. The company argued that excise duty should not apply because the cigarettes were not yet packed, a step it …
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 …
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. claimed exemption from excise duty on steel ingots (Item 26) under Notification No. 53/64, asserting that the ingots were produced from fresh unused steel melting scrap obtained by cutting blooms into pieces and rendering them into scrap. The departmental authorities, the …
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 …
Standard Pencils Ltd., a manufacturer of Kum‑Kum pencils, sought exemption from excise duty under Notification 235/1986‑CE, which exempts goods described as "Kum‑Kum" under sub‑heading 3307.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) classified the …
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 …
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, …
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 …
The dispute centered on whether plaster of paris used to make moulds for sanitaryware qualifies as an "input" eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86, as amended by Notification No. 82/87, under the Central Excise Rules. Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries, the respondent, claimed the …
Unichem Laboratories Ltd., a bulk drug manufacturer, filed classification lists on 3 March 1986 before Notification No. 234/86 was issued. After the notification, it obtained a certificate from the Drugs Controller and claimed exemption from excise duty, but the Assistant Collector denied the claim, …
Speedway Rubber Co. manufactured plates, sheets and strips of vulcanised rubber which were dyed and pressed in a hydraulic press. The Central Excise Department classified the goods under sub‑heading 4016.99, arguing that the hydraulic pressing constituted "further working" under Note 9 of Chapter 40 …
M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., a motor‑vehicle manufacturer, sold waste and scrap of aluminium and iron‑steel and claimed that no excise duty was payable on such sales. The Commissioner of Central Excise raised a demand for excise duty, which the company contested. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) …
The Supreme Court examined the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid" in an exemption notification that relieves goods made from duty‑paid material from further excise duty. The Court held that for the exemption to apply, the raw material must have actually …
Bharti Telecom Ltd imported polypropylene under the Value Based Advance Licensing Scheme (VBALS) and claimed duty‑free clearance under Notification No. 203/92. The Customs Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that Bharti had availed MODVAT credit on inputs used for export, thereby …
Mis Presto Industries, an industrial unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone, claimed exemption from excise duty on waste scrap under Notification No.16/83‑CE after paying only basic customs duty on the scrap cleared for home consumption. The Revenue discovered that the additional duty under Section 3(1) …
The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) which had allowed Mis. Shalimar Chemical Industries to claim exemption from excise duty on benzene, toluene and xylene under the notification dated 1 March 1984. The …
The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal’s order allowing Himalayan Cooperative Milk Product Union Ltd. to claim exemption from excise duty on liquid nitrogen under Notification No. 105/80‑CE. The notification exempts goods falling …
Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., a jute hessian manufacturer, claimed its product fell under tariff item 22‑A, but the Assistant Collector classified it under 22‑B, an order appealable under the Central Excise and Salt Act. The assessee did not appeal the classification order and instead filed a refund …
The respondent, a manufacturer of vegetable products, filed a MODVAT declaration on 10‑Mar‑1987 but had wrongly availed credit from 1‑Mar‑1987. The Excise authorities issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, invoking the six‑month limitation period to …
Tungabhadra Indus Ltd., a manufacturer of hydrogenated oil, had accumulated money credit under two separate Central Excise notifications – one issued in 1987 and later rescinded, and another issued in 1989. The company claimed it could utilise the credits from both notifications simultaneously for …
Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., a subsidiary of Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., was granted a sugar incentive rebate for the 1973‑74 season. The Excise authorities later issued a show‑cause notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, demanding recovery of the rebate, alleging it was …
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products and another manufactured asbestos cement items using cement and asbestos fibre, each excisable under different tariff items. The company sought credit for excise duty paid on the raw materials against duty on the finished products under Rule 56A of the Central …
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 manufacturers purchased raw material and used it to make an intermediate product, which was then used to produce a final excisable product. The issue was whether the excise duty paid on the raw material, which could be claimed as credit under the MODVAT scheme, should be deducted from the raw …
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar, then Collector of Central Excise, ordered confiscation of excisable goods and confirmed duty against Mis. Hari Vishnu Packaging Ltd. but did not impose a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Central Board of Excise directed him to appeal to the …
The appellants imported polyvinyl alcohol and argued that, under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, they should pay the same duty rate as an Indian manufacturer, i.e., the concessional 10% ad valorem rate provided by Excise Notification No. 185 of 1983, provided the raw material (vinyl …
Belapur Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd produced excess sugar between 1 May and 11 June 1982 and paid excise duty under Notification No.132, which excluded factories with nil production in the preceding three years. Notification No.193 of 11 June 1982 substituted paragraph 4 of the earlier …
Lal Woolen and Silk Mills (P) Ltd. paid excise duty on grey worsted woollen yarn and later on dyed yarn and sought a set‑off of the differential amount. The claim was based on Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, which allows a proforma credit if an application is made under sub‑rule (2). The …
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 appellant, a textile mill, was served with two show‑cause notices under Section 11‑A of the Central Excises and Salt Act for alleged excise duty on yarn removed within the factory for the period November 1980 to December 1981. The Delhi High Court had stayed the effect of a circular dated …
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 …
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 …
MIS. STP Ltd., a manufacturer of coal‑tar products, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification 121/62‑CE which exempts ‘tar’ falling under Tariff Item 11(5). The Central Excise authority argued that the various pitches produced by the company were not ‘tar’ within that clause and …
The Collector of Central Excise appealed against Usha Martin Industries, which claimed exemption from central excise duty on wire‑rods manufactured from steel billets that were themselves exempt from duty. The dispute centered on whether the phrase “on which appropriate amount of duty of excise has …
Eastern Diecasting Industry, which manufactures railway overhead equipment and fittings, was classified under Central Excise Tariff Item 68 and faced a demand for duty and a penalty under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for allegedly exceeding exemption limits. The company argued that …
The appellant, Mis Sun Export Corporation, imported six consignments of vitamin AD‑3 premix (feed grade) and claimed refund of customs and counter‑vailing duties on the ground that the product was an ‘animal feed’ covered by Notification No. 234/82‑CE, which exempts such goods. The Customs, Excise …
Sera Kella Glass Works, a sheet‑glass manufacturer, filed price lists and paid excise duty based on its own calculations. The Assistant Collector issued several show‑cause notices, directed provisional assessment under Rule 9‑B and later modified the price list, disallowing most deductions. The …
M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. obtained raw naphtha at a concessional rate under Notification No. 27/89‑CE for manufacturing chemicals listed in the schedule. The raw naphtha was thermally cracked, producing olefinic rich gas, pyrolysis fuel oil and pyrolysis gasoline; the latter was …
Gujarat State Fertilizers Co., a manufacturer of fertilizers, ammonia and chemicals, claimed a concessional excise duty rate on raw naptha used to produce ammonia and a total exemption on ammonia used to make molten urea, invoking Notification No. 75/1984 and Notification No. 40/1985. The Revenue …
Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) manufactured steel ingots using pig iron as a captive input and followed the "later the better" principle, paying excise duty only on the final steel ingots while steel‑melting scrap, a by‑product, was exempt under Notification No.150/77. The Central Excise …
Poulose & Mathen, manufacturers of liquid carbon‑dioxide, received impure CO2 waste from a fertilizer plant under licence L‑6 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 7/65, which exempts carbon‑dioxide used for any industrial purpose. A show‑cause notice dated 20‑Nov‑1978 demanded excise duty …
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 …
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., a recognised refinery, manufactured ethylene, butylene and propylene and claimed that these products fell under Item 11‑AA(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, thereby qualifying for an exemption notification of 21‑December‑1967. The Revenue, relying on a …
The case concerns refunds of excise and customs duties collected contrary to law. The Supreme Court examined the validity of Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as amended in 1991, which restricts refunds to claimants who have not passed on the burden of duty to others. The Court …
The Collector of Central Excise issued a demand that Banswara Syntex Ltd. pay excise duty on single‑ply yarn used for doubling or multifolding, alleging short payment. The company argued that duty should be payable only after the yarn was doubled, contending that the process did not create a new …
Metagraphs Pvt Ltd manufactured printed aluminium labels to be affixed to appliances and claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 55175‑CE, which exempts ‘all products of the printing industry’. The Assistant Collector granted the exemption, but the Collector later revoked it and …
Gaekwar Mills Ltd manufactured a fabric consisting of 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton. The Collector of Central Excise argued that the fabric should be classified as a cotton fabric under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, while the CEGAT held that it fell under Item 22 for …
The appellant, H.M.M. Ltd., manufactures Horlicks at its Rajahmundry plant using barley malt (Tariff Item 68) as a dutiable input. Only a portion of the finished Horlicks is cleared at Rajahmundry, while the bulk is sent to other factories for packaging and clearance. The appellant claimed credit …
Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) used raw naphtha in its fertilizer plant and claimed the concessional excise duty under Exemption Notification No. 187 of 1961, which required proof that the naphtha was intended for fertilizer manufacture. The Revenue argued that a substantial quantity of the …
M/s IDL Chemicals Ltd. manufactures explosives using 80% ammonium nitrate melt purchased from SAIL. An exemption notification dated 11 June 1969 exempted such ammonium nitrate from excise duty under Tariff Item 14HH, provided the licence and bond were obtained. The Central Board later reclassified …
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise appealed against Bata India Ltd. alleging that the manufacturer could not claim exemption under a notification that exempted footwear valued up to Rs.60 per pair when its wholesale price exceeded that limit. Bata argued that by deducting the 10% excise duty …
The respondents applied for renewal of a salt licence under the Central Excise (Salt) Act, 1944. The Union of India, represented by the Deputy Salt Commissioner, insisted that renewal could be granted only if the respondents were the owners or lessees of the land on which the salt works were …
