Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

4 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

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)

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

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

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

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’

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

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