Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

4 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-IIversusM/S. SUNDSTRAND FORMS P. LTD.

2011 INSC 62230 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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.

M/S. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

2011 INSC 62530 August 2011Dismissed

Air Liquide North India Pvt. Ltd. purchased bulk helium gas and, after conducting moisture and purity tests, graded the gas into different categories, repacked it into smaller cylinders and issued separate quality certificates before selling it at a 40‑60% profit margin. The Central Excise authorities held that these a

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPURversusJINDAL DRUGS LTD.

2024 INSC 35430 April 2024Dismissed

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

M/S. HOLOSTICK INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

2015 INSC 27530 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Holostick India Ltd. manufactures security holograms by embossing a flexible metallised plastic film, applying adhesive and release coatings, and cutting the product to size for use as security devices. The Commissioner of Central Excise classified the holograms under tariff entry 39.19 (self‑adhesive plastic shee

M/S. NICHOLAS PLRAMAL INDIA LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2010 INSC 83029 November 2010Dismissed

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

RAMALA SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., U.P.versusCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-1

2010 INSC 82929 November 2010Matter referred to larger bench

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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX,versusM/S. ADANI GAS LTD.

2020 INSC 51328 August 2020Dismissed

The Commissioner of Service Tax appealed against M/s. Adani Gas Ltd. challenging the taxability of charges collected for supplying pipelines and measurement (SKID) equipment to gas consumers. The issue was whether Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 applied, i.e., whether the supply of such tangible goods f

M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - II

2025 INSC 57828 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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)

DINESH TEXTILESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT

2019 INSC 29428 February 2019Dismissed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAIversusM/S. NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD.

2015 INSC 80027 October 2015Dismissed

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

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 40727 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARHversusM/S. KWALITY ICE CREAM CO.

2010 INSC 82326 November 2010Dismissed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S NESTLE INDIA LIMITED

2015 INSC 85624 November 2015Dismissed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM-IIversusM/S. NCC BLUE WATER PRODUCTS LTD.

2010 INSC 64424 September 2010Dismissed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARAversusM/S JYOTI LIMITED AND ORS.

2022 INSC 85724 August 2022Dismissed

M/s Jyoti Ltd, a manufacturer of mechanical and electrical goods, performed installation, erection, commissioning and related civil works at customers' sites in addition to selling goods. The Revenue claimed that these activities amounted to "consulting engineer" services and demanded service tax for the period July 19

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAIversusAYYAPPAN TEXTILES LTD.

2013 INSC 49023 July 2013Dismissed

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

COMMISSSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABADversusM/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD.

2015 INSC 34723 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

2010 INSC 72022 October 2010Dismissed

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

M/S SHANTI FRAGRANCESversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 97121 September 2017Hearing Adjourned

The appeal concerned the taxability of pan masala containing tobacco (gutka) under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The central issue was whether the specific entry introducing "Pan Masala and Gutka" in the rate schedule overrode the general exe

L.M.L. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2010 INSC 63121 September 2010Dismissed

L.M.L. Ltd imported a CD‑ROM that stored images of engineering drawings and designs and claimed nil customs duty under Notification No. 17/2001, seeking classification under tariff heading 49.06 (original hand‑drawn plans) or 49.11 (other printed matter), alternatively under sub‑headings 8524.39/8524.90 or as software

M/S. COASTAL PAPER LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM

2015 INSC 50321 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

2024 INSC 88020 November 2024Disposed off

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

COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. AHMEDABADversusM/S URMIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 95120 October 2023Disposed off

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 QUIPPO ENERGY LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II

2025 INSC 113019 September 2025Dismissed

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 105519 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD IVversusM/S. STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS

2015 INSC 97519 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 89318 December 2024Dismissed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusM/S HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL & OTHER

2010 INSC 78518 November 2010Disposed off

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

M/S. SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD.versus. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.

2015 INSC 23418 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS

2013 INSC 84517 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (NOW HP INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.)versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA

2023 INSC 5017 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, BHUBANESWAR

2022 INSC 96716 September 2022Case Partly allowed

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 Appellate Tribunal re

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSOREversusM/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD.

2015 INSC 92115 December 2015Disposed off

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,

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI IVversusM/S. CIENS LABORATORIES, MUMBAI

2013 INSC 53714 August 2013Dismissed

The case concerned the classification of the skin cream ‘Moisturex’ for excise duty purposes. The Central Excise Commissioner argued that the product was a cosmetic under Heading 33.04, attracting 70% duty, while the assessee contended it was a medicament under Heading 30.03, attracting only 15% duty. The Supreme Court

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABADversusM/S. SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

2015 INSC 41314 May 2015Disposed off

The case concerned the classification of Ketoconazole (Nizral) Shampoo for central excise purposes. The assessee argued that the product, containing 2% ketoconazole and marketed for the treatment of dandruff, should be classified under CHS 3003.10 as a pharmaceutical product, attracting 16% duty, whereas the revenue co

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTDversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND . CUSTOMS, DAMAN

2011 INSC 4914 January 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether "physician samples" of patented and proprietary medicines, which are distributed free of cost to doctors and prohibited from sale under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are liable to central excise duty. It held that excise duty is a tax on manufacture, not on sale, and therefore the stat

M/S THERMAX LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-1

2022 INSC 107813 October 2022Dismissed

M/s Thermax Ltd. (appellant) manufactures Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) and described them as heat pumps to obtain a concessional excise rate under Notification 155/86‑CE. The Revenue argued that the MVAC’s primary output is chilled water, not heat, and therefore it does not meet the HSN definition of a he

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2011 INSC 76113 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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 scrap did not a

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusMADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 33313 April 2018Directions issued

The case concerned the classification of 100% pure coconut oil packed in small retail containers. The Revenue argued that such packaging made the oil a "hair oil" falling under Chapter 33, Heading 3305, while the assessee contended it remained "coconut oil" under Chapter 15, Heading 1513. The Court examined the pre‑ an

M/S. JAYASWAL NECO LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2015 INSC 96913 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Jay​aswal 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 Rule 570, and the Cu

M/S FLEX ENGINEERING LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, U.P

2012 INSC 2313 January 2012Disposed off

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 activity and the materi

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-IIversusM/S. OSNAR CHEMICAL P. LTD.

2012 INSC 2213 January 2012Dismissed

The assessees, M/s Osnar Chemical, supplied polymer‑modified bitumen (PMB) and crumbled‑rubber‑modified bitumen (CRMB) by heating petroleum bitumen, adding a small proportion of polymer and additives, and agitating the mixture to improve its quality. The revenue argued that this process created a new marketable commodi

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARAversusINDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPN. LTD. &ANR.

2015 INSC 40012 May 2015Dismissed

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 exemption granted by

BATA INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2010 INSC 20412 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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, 1944 and demanded du

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusS. GURUKRIPA RESINS PVT. LTD.

2011 INSC 48111 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, S. Gurukripa Resins Pvt. Ltd., manufactured turpentine oil and rosin by distilling crude turpentine and used electric motors to lift water for cooling the condensers. It claimed exemption from excise duty on the ground that the manufacturing process was carried out without the aid of power. The revenue au

LIPI BOILERS LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2025 INSC 129710 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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 added to the boiler’

M/S. ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF M/S EICHER LTD.)versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

2011 INSC 56710 August 2011Dismissed

Royal Enfield (unit of M/s Eicher Ltd.) manufactured motorcycles and dispatched them to dealers outside Chennai in a packed condition, charging Rs.190 per bike as packing charges and claiming an abatement in the assessable value for excise duty. The Central Excise authorities disallowed the inclusion of these packing c

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAMversusM/S. MEHTA & CO.

2011 INSC 11810 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to M/s Mehta & Co., alleging that the firm manufactured and removed wooden furniture from a hotel premises without paying excise duty, thereby evading tax. The respondent contested the demand, arguing that the items were immovable fixtures and that the deman

M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS.

2015 INSC 7569 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Spentex Industries Ltd., manufactured polyester yarns, paid excise duty on both the raw materials and the finished products, and exported the goods. It claimed rebate of duty on both inputs and final goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, filing 45 rebate applications. The Revenue rejecte

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusSOLID & CORRECT ENGINEERING WORKS & ORS.

2010 INSC 2028 April 2010

The case concerned whether the erection of an Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plant using duty‑paid components constitutes the manufacture of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the manufacturers of the plant’s parts were eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93‑CE. The Supreme

WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LTD.versusCOMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA

2021 INSC 1588 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd., a state‑owned manufacturer of electrical relays, sought to have its relays classified under Chapter 86 heading 8608 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, arguing that they are used solely as parts of railway signalling equipment. The Revenue argued that the relays fell under Chapter 85

M/S. STAR INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), RAIGAD

2015 INSC 7487 October 2015Dismissed

M/S. Star Industries imports roasted molybdenum ore concentrate for ferro‑alloy production and claims exemption from customs counter‑vailing duty under Notification No. 4/2006‑CE, which exempts "ores". The Customs Department contended that the imported material is a concentrate, not an ore, and therefore not covered by

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusM/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD.

2015 INSC 7427 October 2015Dismissed

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 examined the evolution

M/S SALORA INTERNATIGNAL LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2012 INSC 3847 September 2012Dismissed

MIS Salora International Ltd., a manufacturer of television components, assembled the parts into complete TV sets for testing, numbered and matched them, then disassembled the sets and shipped the parts to satellite units for final assembly. The Revenue classified the goods as "Television Receivers" under Tariff Entry

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDAversusMIS. KITPLY INDUSTRIES LTD.

2011 INSC 6587 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Excise Department appealed against Kitply Industries Ltd., contending that its laminated particle board and laminated medium density fibre board should be classified under sub‑headings 4406.90/4407.90 of Chapter 44.06/44.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent argued that the products were

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI.

2015 INSC 3917 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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 Tribunal held that

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARHversusM/S. DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS.

2011 INSC 4706 July 2011

Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, a manufacturer of hot re‑rolled steel, was initially assigned an annual capacity of 7,683.753 MT using the formula in Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules, but the Commissioner applied Rule 5 to fix the capacity at 11,961.135 MT based on actual production in 1996‑97. After the mill altered its machine

MADRAS CEMENTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2010 INSC 2806 May 2010Dismissed

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 disallowed the credi

M/S. SECURE METERS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2015 INSC 3785 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Secure Meters Ltd., a manufacturer of electricity meters, imported liquid crystal display (LCD) modules from Hong Kong and sought customs clearance under Chapter Heading 9013.80, claiming nil basic duty. The Customs authorities classified the LCDs under Chapter Heading 9028.90 as parts of electricity meters, imposi

M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) AND ORS.

2023 INSC 4874 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether pan masala and gutkha, products containing betel nut and sometimes tobacco, could be taxed under various state sales‑tax statutes despite being listed as exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court analysed the classification of these products under the Central Excise Tari

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusM/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD.

2024 INSC 5722 August 2024

The State of Gujarat appealed against the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal and the High Court, which had allowed M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd. to exclude Value Added Tax (VAT) and the value of purchases on which no tax credit was claimed from its taxable turnover of purchases under Section 11(3)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added

SARASWATI SUGAR MILLSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-ILL

2011 INSC 5342 August 2011Dismissed

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 Central Excise Rules

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IVversusM/S. SANDAN VIKAS (I) LTD.

2015 INSC 4421 July 2015Disposed off

The appeal concerned the classification of car air‑conditioning kits and automotive gas compressors under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period 1 August 1991 to 28 February 1993. The revenue argued that the kits, whether sold with or without compressors, should be taxed under serial No.3 (or serial No.5) o

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IIIversusM/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD.

2020 INSC 3811 May 2020Dismissed

The assessee, M/s. Uni Products India Ltd., manufactured textile car mats and cleared them under heading 570390.90, attracting an 8% excise duty, whereas the revenue argued they should fall under heading 8708.99.00 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles, attracting a 16% duty. The Commissioner issued three show‑cau

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