Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. installed storage units, kitchen counters, running counters and large reception tables as part of turnkey interior projects. The Central Excise authorities treated these items as "furniture" under Tariff Item 9403 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and levied excise duty. The company conte…

Decorative Laminates (India) Pvt Ltd processes commercial plywood by applying phenol‑formaldehyde resin under heat and pressure and coating it with wire mesh to produce slip‑proof plywood. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that the finished product is a different commodity and liable to excise duty under C…

Bhor Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of crude PVC films used as intermediate inputs for leather cloth, laminated jute mattings and PVC tapes, claimed that the films were non‑marketable and therefore not liable to excise duty. The Appellate Collector (1974) accepted this view, but the Assistant Collector later re‑classi…

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 Tariff Act, 1985, in cont…

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.…

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…

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 cost price of pulp,…

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals filed by the Central Excise Commissioner against several manufacturers of industrial gases who charged customers for containers such as cylinders, canisters and tanners. The issue was whether these ancillary charges should be included in the "transaction value" for determin…

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…

The appellant‑assessee, Mis. Span Diagnostics Ltd., manufactures monoclonal antibodies (MABs), pregnancy test kits, and other diagnostic reagents. The Department classified these products under Chapter 30.05 or Chapter 38.22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, while the assessee claimed classification under Chapter…

The case concerned the classification of "Banphool Oil" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue argued that the product was a perfumed hair oil (Tariff Item 3305.10) or a toilet preparation, while the assessee contended it was an Ayurvedic medicament (Tariff Item 3003.30). The Customs, Excise and Gold (C…

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…

The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay appealed against the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal's decision that the distillation and recrystallisation processes undertaken by Mis. S.D. Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. did not constitute "manufacture" for excise purposes. The Tribunal was divided: the technical…

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…

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…

The assessee, Nirmala Dyachem, manufactures a product called Domex Power Cleaner/Domex All round Home Cleaner and classified it under heading 38.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a disinfectant. The Revenue argued that the product should be placed under heading 34.02, which covers organic surface‑active agen…

The Court examined whether cinder, the unburnt portion of coal left after its use as fuel in factories, is liable to excise duty under Entry 26.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It held that cinder is not a product of manufacture because coal is used only as fuel and no transformation creates a new substance; …

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the CESTAT order that held zinc dross and flux skimming, by-products of aluminium sheet manufacture, to be non‑excisable. The Revenue argued that the revised Central Excise Tariff (heading 26.20) now classifies such residues as "ash and residues" and that their high a…

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, 1985. The Revenue is…

Orient Ceramics & India Ltd imported two consignments of tiles and claimed they were unglazed porcelain tiles under tariff heading 6907.90, which is freely importable without a licence. Physical examination and tests by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) showed the tiles were glazed, which are classified und…

The appellant, Kemrock Industries & Exports Ltd., manufactured glass fibre reinforced plastics and sought classification of the product under Heading 70.14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, arguing that the essential character remained that of glass fibre. The Revenue contended that the product should be classifi…

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 another person, not el…

Procter & Gamble manufactured detergent powder (AMS) in 25 kg bulk packs at its Bhopal plant and sent the powder to an independent job‑worker, IED, for repacking into 20 g and 30 g sachets. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the assessee had suppressed the true price of the product and, as the sachets…

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…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the classification of the product "Close‑Up Whitening" by the respondent, Global Health Care Products, which the respondent had placed under sub‑heading 3306.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as a dental cleaner. The Revenue argued that the product was a toothpast…

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)…

Fenner (India) Ltd. manufactured PVC‑impregnated conveyor belting of lengths 100‑400 m, widths 600‑1200 mm and thickness 7‑9.5 mm. The Central Excise authorities classified the belting under Tariff Heading 39.20 (plates, sheets, film, foil and strip) as a "strip", while the appellants argued that it should fall under H…

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…

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 Central Excise Act…

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 …

The Central Excise Commissioners issued show‑cause notices to Apollo Tyres Ltd. and its directors/officers for alleged duty evasion and imposed penalties. Both the company and the officers appealed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, and while the appeals were pending, the Kar Vivad Samadh…

The respondents, M/s Aruna Straw Boards Ltd., manufactured single‑ply straw boards, a portion of which was cleared on payment of excise duty and the remainder was used in‑factory to produce multiple‑ply straw boards that were also cleared on duty. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that duty should be levi…

The petitioners, ship‑breakers, were directed by the Central Excise authorities to pay duty on ship scrap, which they contested as not being ‘manufacture’ under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Gujarat High Court, in an interim order, allowed them to clear the scrap on payment of 25% of the duty, subject to …

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 freight, leading to the …

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…

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 8708.00 of the Central Exc…

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 residuary entry, …

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…

Vicco Laboratories manufactures products such as Vicco Vajradanti and Vicco Turmeric, which it claims are Ayurvedic medicines. The Central Excise authorities repeatedly issued show‑cause notices (1976, 1987, 1997, 2005) seeking to re‑classify these products as cosmetics under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Earlie…

I.T.C. Ltd. classified the 'slides' of cigarette packets under heading 4818.19 with nil duty, but the Revenue issued a show‑cause notice to reclassify them under heading 4818.90. The appellant raised the plea that 'slides' (and later 'slits') were not excisable goods only at the appellate stage, and the Collector (Appe…

Mis. Sharp Industries Ltd. manufactures aluminium foil laminated on one side with polyester film and on the other with polyethylene and sought classification of the product under Tariff Headings 76.07 and 76.12 (aluminium foil "backed"). The Revenue argued that the product should fall under Tariff Headings 39.20.38 and…

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 painting did not amount t…

Pragati Silicones Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic name plates for motor vehicles, sought classification of its products under headings 87.08 and 87.14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as "parts and accessories" of vehicles. The revenue department re‑classified the plates under heading 39.26 (other articles o…

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 refuse, not goods withi…

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 Central Excise aut…

Forbes Gokak Ltd. manufactured glass moulds with plastic gaskets for making ophthalmic lenses. The Central Excise authority classified the product under heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as "other articles of glass" and levied duty, while the assessee claimed classification under heading 84.80, which carri…

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 of List I, 51 and 8…

M/s Sunny Industries Pvt. Ltd. manufactured an Ad‑vitamin Massage Oil Forte and claimed it to be a patent or proprietary medicine, seeking classification under tariff heading 30.03 (medicaments). The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) classified it as a cosmetic product under heading 33.04, a decision uphe…

Castrol India Ltd manufactured a blended lubricating oil called ‘Super TT’ with a flash point below 94°C and classified it under tariff heading 2710.99, claiming exemption under Notification 120/84‑CE which exempts blended or compounded lubricating oils. The Central Excise Department argued that the notification applie…

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 argued that the two nil‑…

M.R.F. Ltd. manufactures tyres and uses grey tyre‑cord fabric that is dipped in a latex solution before being incorporated into tyres. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices alleging that the dipped tyre‑cord fabric was a separate excisable product falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 59.02…

The Union of India appealed against a Bombay High Court decision that a strip of surgical dressing (trade‑name Handyplast) medicated with 0.125% nitrofurozone was not a "patent or proprietary medicine" under Tariff Item 14‑E of the Central Excise and Salt Act. The product consisted of a sterile elastic adhesive pad to …

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 …

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…

The Commissioner of Central Excise (Pondicherry) challenged Acer India Ltd.'s practice of deducting the value of operational software from the assessable value of computers for central excise purposes. The Revenue argued that the software, being loaded in the hardware, formed part of the computer and its value should b…

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 proviso of the noti…

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…

Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd. manufactured paper‑based decorative laminated sheets and classified them under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner of Central Excise argued that the goods should fall under sub‑heading 4823.90 of Chapter 48 and that the exemption under Notification No. 135/89‑C…

Impression Prints, a manufacturer of printed bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases, claimed a nil duty exemption under Notification No. 65/87‑CE which applies to "made up textile articles" manufactured without the aid of power. The Revenue argued that the colour‑mixing and screen‑printing processes used power, and th…

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 rejecting the credit, arguin…

Mis. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. manufactured textile printing adhesives and claimed exemption under Notification No. 1/1993 (as amended) and Notification No. 16/1997. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices alleging that the company used a foreign logo, suppressing facts and evading duty, and impose…

The Supreme Court examined whether silver chloride, an intermediate product generated during Hindustan Zinc Ltd.'s zinc manufacturing process, is liable to excise duty. The Court reiterated that excise duty applies only when an item is both manufactured and commercially marketable. While the manufacturing test was sati…

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 Collector of Central E…

Mis. Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. bought edible vegetable oil on which excise duty had already been paid, refined it by treatment with alkali/acid, bleaching and deodorisation, and sold the refined oil. The assessee claimed that the refining did not constitute "manufacture" and therefore no excise duty was payable. The Revenue …

Cemento Corporation Ltd manufactured a lime‑pozzolana mixture called Lympo from 1982 and claimed it was a cement substitute, seeking classification under the residuary Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which would exempt it from excise duty. The Collector of Central Excise classified Lympo as a …

The dispute concerned the classification of technical grade pesticides (TGP) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Prior to 1996, TGP and insecticides in bulk were placed in tariff heading 38.08. Amendments to Chapter 38 in 1996 and 1997 and a 1997 circular directed that such chemicals be classified under Chapters…

Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of rubber profiles, classified its products under sub‑heading 4008.29 of the Central Excise Tariff, attracting nil duty. The Revenue re‑classified them under sub‑heading 4016.19, alleging that the company had not disclosed post‑forming processes (notching, drilling, slitting) wh…

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…

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. 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, 1944, but the assessi…

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…

Mis. C.T. Cotton Yarn Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit, purchased cotton domestically and manufactured yarn for export. During carding and combing, soft cotton waste was generated, which the company sold in the domestic market. Initially it was informed that the waste was non‑excisable, but after the Finance Act, 1995…

Jaypee Rewa Cement, a cement manufacturer, used explosives to mine limestone, an essential raw material. The explosives attracted excise duty, and the company claimed credit for this duty under Rule 57‑A of the Central Excise Rules, arguing that the explosives were inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the fina…

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 consolidated Notificat…

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 heading 39.07 and dem…

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 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 …

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice alleging that Mis Frick India Ltd. had undervalued compressors and overvalued the accessories supplied separately, thereby evading excise duty. The assessee argued that the fly‑wheel, safety valve and filter were separate goods classifiable under their own t…

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…

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 Excise (Appeals) we…

Continental Profiles Ltd appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise challenging the classification of electric valve actuators under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant argued that, based on Guindy Machines and Audco India decisions, the actuators should fall under sub‑heading 85.43, whereas the…

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between the Central Excise Department and Abhi Chemical & Pharmaceuticals over the correct classification of the product Recovit, a premix containing vitamins, minerals, anti‑oxidants, solvents and stabilisers used exclusively as animal feed. The Revenue argued that Recovit should b…

Flash Laboratories Ltd, a toothpaste manufacturer, sold 60% of its output to its holding company Parle Products Ltd and the remaining 40% to another subsidiary, Parle Biscuits Ltd. The Central Excise authorities issued show‑cause notices alleging that the three entities were "related persons" under Section 4(4)(c) of t…

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…

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…

The appellant, Indian Cable Co., produced PVC compound (granules) from duty‑paid PVC resin and was assessed excise duty on the compound. The Tribunal held that the conversion constituted "manufacture" under Sec. 2(t) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that the compound was dutiable. The appellant contended t…

H.V. Industrial Electronics Pvt Ltd manufactures power controllers (light dimmers/heat controllers) and initially classified them under heading 8543.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, later reclassifying them under 8536.90. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs issued show‑cause notices asserting that th…

Adhunick Food Products Ltd. manufactures cereal‑based "puffs" that it supplies to the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and sells under the brand "Bonton". The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging mis‑declaration of the product as "prasad/prasadam" and demanded Rs 2.31 crore in duty, a…

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 38.24), a residuary hea…

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 Directorate of Vanaspati con…

ICPA Health Products Ltd. manufactures three surgical disinfectant products—Hexiprev, Hexiscrub (Surgiscrub) and Haxiaque—and initially classified them under Tariff Item 3003.10 (patent or proprietary medicaments) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices se…

The Supreme Court considered two sets of appeals. In Union Carbide India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh it examined whether dry‑cell batteries and arc‑carbons were taxable under the higher‑rate entries 3 or 4 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 or under the lower‑rate residuary entry 38. The Court held t…

M/s Motor Industries Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of nozzles, nozzle holders and injectors, was served a show‑cause notice demanding central excise duty on its nozzles and nozzle holders used in the assembly of injectors, the department alleging they were intermediate products under tariff heading 8409.00 and that the comp…

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 short‑levy of duty could…

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…

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…

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 pencils under headin…

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices to Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd (CPC) demanding excise duty on Refinery Fuel Oil (RFO) used to produce naptha, sulphur and electricity. CPC, a government‑owned refinery declared a "deemed warehouse", argued that naptha and sulphur are petroleum products …

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…

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 supari) which carries ni…

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…

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 …

The Commissioner of Central Excise held that Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (MACL) had created three front companies to evade excise duty on hydrogen gas, treating them as dummies and imposing duty, penalty and confiscation. The Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) overturned this, finding no in…

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…

Vikram Cement sought CENVAT credit for explosives used in quarrying limestone, which were later used in cement production, despite the explosives never entering its factory. The issue was whether the earlier Supreme Court decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement, which allowed MODVAT credit for such inputs, applied to the CENVAT…

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…

The Supreme Court examined the classification of paper‑based decorative laminated sheets, cotton‑fabric‑based laminates and paper‑based electrical insulators manufactured by M/s Wood Polymers Ltd. The Revenue argued that the products fell under Chapter 48 (sub‑headings 4818.90/4823.90) and were eligible for concessiona…

The Supreme Court examined whether the value of tangible software (discs, floppies, CD‑ROMs) sold together with a computer should be included in the assessable value of the computer for excise duty. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal had held that the computer system and its software formed a singl…

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 "goods" under the Cent…

Mis. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., a motor‑vehicle manufacturer, generated electricity in its plant using naphtha and diesel and sold a portion of the surplus to its joint ventures, vendors and the grid for a price. The company claimed CENVAT credit on the duty paid on the fuel used for electricity generation, arguing that elect…

Ibex Gallagher Pvt. Ltd. assembles a solar electric power fencing system at various sites using a mix of duty‑paid and bought‑out components. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that the assembly creates a new product distinct from its parts, classifying it under tariff sub‑heading 8543.90 and levying excise duty, …

Indcon Structurals (P) Ltd, a manufacturer of cement tiles, claimed exemption from a 15% ad valorem excise duty under Notification No. 59/90‑CE, which excluded "floor coverings in rolls or in the form of tiles" from the benefit. The Revenue argued that the tiles fell within the excluded category. The adjudicating autho…

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 show‑cause notice alleged col…

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs appealed against the classification of rubberised tyre cord fabric manufactured by Mis. CEA T Ltd., arguing that it should be taxed under tariff heading 59.02 rather than 59.06. The appellate court examined the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Exc…

The Central Excise Department appealed against M/s. CEAT Ltd. challenging the classification of dipped tyre cord fabric for excise duty. The Tribunal and the Commissioner had classified the fabric under specific tariff headings, but the Supreme Court examined whether it should fall under Tariff Heading 59.02 or 59.06 a…

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 …

In Mis. Farwood Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, the appellant challenged the classification and duty liability of certain goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner had affirmed the original assessment, but the appellant relied on the prec…

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 the credit taken und…

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…

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 department held that the i…

Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of a computer‑based STD‑PCO unit, appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, challenging the inclusion of the value of a programmed EPROM in the assessable value of the unit and seeking exemption under Notification No.84/89 which exempts computer softw…

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, …

Jai Fibres Ltd manufactures HDPE bags and had been classifying them under Chapter 63 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for the period 1 April 1992 to 15 October 1992, paying duty accordingly. Different High Courts were split on whether such bags should fall under Chapter 39 or Chapter 63, the Madhya Pradesh High Court h…

M/s Karnataka Agro Chemicals manufactured "multi micronutrient" compounds, registered as fertilizers, and the Central Excise Commissioner alleged that the company misdeclared the products as containing nitrogen to attract classification under "other fertilizers" (CHS 3105.00) and evade duty. The Tribunal held that even…

The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the CEGAT order that held an intermediate product prepared by Jagatjit Industries Ltd. from yeast, molasses and water was not liable to excise duty. The respondents bought fresh yeast, mixed it with molasses and water, and propagated it for use in the manufacture of potable…

G.S. Auto International Ltd manufactured screws, bolts, nuts and similar items that were used as components of motor vehicles. The dispute concerned their proper classification under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – whether they should fall under Tariff Item 52 (bolts, nut…

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…

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…

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 regulators are accessories…

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…

Alpine Industries manufactured a product called "Lip Salve" and supplied it exclusively to the Defence Department for use by military personnel at high altitude. The company claimed that the product was a medicament and should be classified under Heading 30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, thereby attracting …

Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd. manufactures floor tiles marketed under the trade names “Marbella Agglomerated Marble” and “Marbellam Tiles” and classifies them under tariff heading 68.07. Notification No. 59/91‑CE dated 20‑Mar‑1990 exempts “mosaic tiles, i.e., tiles known commercially as mosaic tiles” in that heading.…

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…

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…

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 Act, 1944, assessing…

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 and proposed re‑clas…

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…

Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. manufactures Dant Manjan Lal, a tooth powder prepared according to Ayurvedic formulas. Earlier it was classified as a medicine and exempt from excise duty, but the Tribunal later held it to be a toilet requisite. After the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 introduced Sub‑heading 3003.31 for…

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…

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 yarn under Heading 56.…

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…

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…

M/s Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd manufactured enamelled copper winding wires using duty‑paid copper wire bars. Certain final products were exempt from excise duty under Notification 69/86‑CE (as amended by 106/88), which required that no credit be taken on the inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The a…

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 permissible deduction. T…

M/s Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. manufactures a perfumery (odoriferous) compound used in the production of agarbathi. The Central Board of Excise and Customs issued Circular No.495/61/99-CX.3 (1999) stating that such odoriferous compounds, when used as an intermediate in a continuous manufacturing process and not …

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 …

The appellants, manufacturers of rapid‑hardening white cement, challenged the classification of their product under the Central Excise Tariff. They argued that the cement should be placed in Entry 23(i) of the Central Excises & Salt Act (and later Sub‑heading 2502.20) as rapid‑hardening cement, rather than in the resid…

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…

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 words "Manufactured by…

G. Claridge & Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of molded pulp egg trays, sought exemption from central excise duty by classifying its products as "containers" under Item 17 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Heading 48.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The tax authorities classified the trays as "articles o…

The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, appealed against K.W.H. Heloplastics Ltd. for non‑payment of excise duty on plastic tanks and vats. The department classified the goods under Heading 39.25, Sub‑heading 3925.10 as "builders' ware" liable to duty, while the assessee claimed exemption under Sub‑heading 3926.90 as …

Mis. Mercantile Company received raw chemicals from Mis. T. Paul & Sons, supplied by Mis. Philips India Ltd., and carried out filtering, repacking into 50 ml containers, labeling and marketing them as distinct cleaning products. The Central Excise authorities classified these goods under sub‑heading 3402.90 of the Cent…

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…

Mis Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. melted aluminium ingots and added alloys to produce aluminium billets, which were used captively for irrigation pipe manufacture (exempt) and also sold in the open market. The Commissioner of Central Excise demanded excise duty on the billets, holding that the conversion constituted "manufact…

Quinn India Ltd manufactured a product called Penetrator 4893, originally classified under tariff item 68 and later under 3801.19. In 1986 the company re‑classified it under heading 3402.90 as a wetting (surface‑active) agent, relying on reports from a Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist of the Central Revenue Cont…

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 whether the value of fin…

MIS Intel Design Systems (India) Ltd. manufactures contractors, switches and control boxes that are supplied to the Ministry of Defence for use in tanks and armoured fighting vehicles. The company sought to have these items classified under Chapter 8710 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, arguing that they are part…

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’…

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 classified as a cos…

Sodani Cement and Chemicals (P) Ltd., a small‑scale industry (SSI) manufacturing ordinary Portland cement, sought the benefit of Notification No. 23/1989‑CE which exempts cement produced in a vertical shaft kiln with a licensed capacity not exceeding 200 tonnes per day from the normal excise duty of Rs. 215 per tonne, …

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 exemption, but the ex…

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 Collector of Central Excise appealed against the classification of three types of laminated sheets—decorative, industrial (paper‑based), and glass‑epoxy—manufactured by Bakelite Hylam Ltd. The issues concerned whether the sheets fell under Entry 15A(2) of the 1944 Excise Act, the residuary Entry 68, or various entr…

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…

Mis Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. manufactured welded steel pipes and tubes using duty‑paid raw material and installed a tube mill and welding head as part of a plant expansion. The Central Excise authorities seized the plant and issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the machinery, classified under tariff item 58, wa…

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…

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 "capital goods" unde…

M/s JSW Steel Ltd. manufactured pig iron and HR coil sheets and, in its invoices, added a charitable donation called ‘Dharmada’ which was credited to charity. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking penalty under Rule 25 of the Centra…

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 them the Small Scale …

Charminar Non‑Wovens Ltd., a carpet manufacturer, classified its non‑woven carpets as "jute carpets" under heading 5703.20 and claimed a concessional excise duty. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging mis‑classification and appealed the adjudicating authority’s order that upheld the classification. The Addl. …

M/s Champdany Industries Ltd. manufactured carpets interlacing jute, cotton and polypropylene yarns, with jute constituting more than 50% by weight. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice classifying the carpets as polypropylene carpets because the surface was polypropylene, rejecting the predominance of jute. The Assi…

The appellants, Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. and another, dealt in turbo alternators, which they assembled on customers' premises by fixing a steam turbine and a complete alternator on a concrete platform. The Revenue Department claimed that the assembled turbo alternators were liable to excise duty under He…

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 15A(1). RCPL sought re…

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., 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…

Mis. Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd., a licensed manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines, challenged the classification of its products as cosmetics by the CEGAT, which attracted a higher excise duty. The Supreme Court applied the well‑settled "twin test"—the common‑parlance test and the Ayurvedic‑text‑book ingredients test…

Maharshi Ayurveda Corporation Ltd manufactured a tonic called “Herbonic”, a mixture of vegetables, nuts, seeds and other plant parts, and claimed nil excise duty under heading 2001.90 of Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue argued that the product should be classified under the residuary headi…

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…

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 …

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 only to manufacturers…

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 …

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…

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 …

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 of the Central Exci…

Phil Corporation Ltd. processed cashew nuts, peanuts and almonds by dry/oil roasting, salting, seasoning and packed them in small containers, clearing the goods without paying excise duty and claiming classification under Chapter 8 (0801.00) at a nil rate. The Revenue argued that the processed products fall under Chapt…

The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice to Mis Bajaj Tempo Ltd demanding duty on advertisement expenses that the manufacturer initially incurred and later recovered from its dealers, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 1IA(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Author…

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai appealed against the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal’s order granting exemption to M/s National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. for excise duty on ethylene and propylene used as captive refrigerants in its naphtha‑cracking plant. The issue was whether the …

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., 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…

Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. (UFAC), a 100% Export Oriented Unit, entered into an agreement with Tata Iron & Steel Co. (TISCO) to convert raw manganese ore supplied free of cost into silicon manganese for a fee. The Revenue argued that such job‑work was not permitted under the EXIM Policy and that, under the…

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 printed box, excluded…

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 penalty. The CEGAT …

The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged Mis. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. for cutting and slitting duty‑paid jumbo rolls of tissue paper into smaller rolls, napkins and facial tissues, alleging that this constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracted duty under a different ta…

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 parts of central ai…

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…

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. manufactured electric overhead travelling (EOT) cranes and challenged the liability of excise duty on them. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, relying on a Patna High Court decision, held the cranes to be "complete cranes" under tariff heading 81.26 and thus liable to …

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 held that the menthol …

The respondents, Susma Textile Pvt. Ltd., manufacture cotton fabrics that are stiff and heavily sized with starch gum and inorganic fillers. They initially classified the product under heading 52.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, but the excise department re‑classified it under heading 59.01, alleging it to be…

Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd. appealed against the Central Excise Tribunal’s classification of its Johnson’s Prickly Heat Powder and Phipps Processed Talc as cosmetics/toilet preparations under tariff heading 33.04. The Collector (Appeals) had classified them as patent or proprietary medicines under tariff heading 30.03…

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 fabrics were impregna…