Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

NIRLON LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2015 INSC 34923 April 2015Case Partly allowed

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusM/S. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD

2011 INSC 14121 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S. RANADEY MICRONUTRIENTS ETC.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

1996 INSC 102810 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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 fertilisers" under headi

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAIversusM/S. J.D. ORGOCHEM LIMITED

2008 INSC 47710 April 2008Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs appealed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which had accepted M/s JD Orgochem Ltd.'s declared transaction value of US$13.2 per kg for imported dinitro crysazine, despite an earlier import at US$18.7 per kg. The assessing authority had rejected the d

M/S. T.T.G. INDUSTRIES LTD., MADRASversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2004 INSC 3797 May 2004Appeal(s) allowed

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. entered into a contract with Bhilai Steel Plant to design, supply, and erect hydraulic mudguns and tap‑hole drilling machines. Components were imported and some were manufactured at its Chennai factory, then shipped to the steel plant where they were assembled on a concrete platform 25 feet above

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