Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
21 judgments · newest first · showing 1–21
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 …
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 …
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 …
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) …
Northern Plastic Ltd. imported 59 jumbo rolls of unexposed photographic colour films, describing them in the Bill of Entry as "Cinematographic Colour Films (Unexposed) Positive" and claimed customs and counter‑vailing duty exemptions under an Open General Licence. Customs authorities held the …
Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd (RCPL) manufactures sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (SCMC) and initially classified it under Central Excise Tariff Item 68. The Department’s Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist tested the product and reported it to be a cellulose ether, which falls under Tariff Item …
The appellants, manufacturers of micronutrients, challenged the classification of their products for excise duty. An earlier Board circular (June 1990) classified micronutrients as "plant growth regulators" under heading 38.08, while a later circular (November 1994) re‑classified them as "other …
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co‑operative Ltd., a urea manufacturer, obtained raw naphtha at a concessional excise rate to produce ammonia. The ammonia was used not only in the urea plant but also in off‑site facilities – water‑treatment, steam‑generation, inert‑gas generation and effluent‑treatment …
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 …
Mis Motilates Pvt. Ltd. and other appellants manufactured laminated sheets using phenol‑formaldehyde resin that was produced as an unstable solution (resol) and consumed only within their own process. The Central Excise Department, relying on the 1979 amendment to the Central Excise Rules, claimed …
Rainbow Industries, a dye‑stuff manufacturer, filed a price list under Rule 173(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for sales to related persons, which the department approved effective 1 October 1975. About a year later the department issued a show‑cause notice demanding revision of the assessable …
The respondent, proprietor of Neptune Waterproof Manufacturing Co., purchased plain kraft paper and applied various coatings such as bitumen, polyethylene, wax, and jute to produce waterproof and laminated papers. The company contended that these processes did not create a new article and therefore …
The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a truck carrying a large quantity of hashish and, during the investigation, obtained confessional statements from Raj Kumar Karwal and Kirpal Mohan Virmani. The appellants argued that these statements should be excluded under Section 25 of the …
The petitioners, industrial users of ethyl alcohol, challenged state statutes imposing a vend fee and other levies on industrial alcohol, arguing that such taxes were beyond the legislative competence of the states. The Court examined the constitutional distribution of powers, focusing on Entries 84 …
Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of food products, claimed that stocks of goods fully manufactured before the Finance Bill 1987-88 made them dutiable (effective 1 March 1987) should be cleared duty‑free as pre‑budget stocks. The Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) and the …
K. Mohan & Co. imported metallised polyester film rolls from Japan and paid customs duty and countervailing duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The firm claimed a refund on the basis of notification No. 228/76 issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, which exempts "articles made of …
Indian Oxygen Ltd., a manufacturer of dissolved acetylene and compressed oxygen gases, supplied the gases in cylinders. Some customers used their own cylinders while others used cylinders supplied by the company, for which the company charged a rental fee and took a deposit on which a notional 18% …
Delhi Cloth Mills, a manufacturer of vegetable oil products, sold its "Panghat" and "Roshni" brands at wholesale prices lower than the maximum prices fixed by a government notification under the Essential Commodities Act due to market depression. The company submitted these actual prices to the …
Food Specialities Ltd manufactured various dairy and food products for Nestle's Products India Ltd under Nestle's registered trademarks and supplied them at a wholesale price (free on rail or free on lorry). The dispute arose over the valuation of these goods for the purpose of levying excise duty …
M/s Oriental Timber Industries, a manufacturer of plywood circles for packing, was previously assessed excise duty on the finished circles. After an audit objection, the Central Excise authorities issued notices demanding assessment on the plywood at the panel (block) stage under Item 16B of the …
Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and others, manufacturers of various types of glass, challenged the levy of excise duty by the Central Excise Department under Item 23A(1) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, contending that their products were not "sheet glass" and should be taxed under the residual …
