Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

229 judgments · newest first · showing 1–200

LIPI BOILERS LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2025 INSC 1297Appeal(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 …

M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II

2025 INSC 1130Dismissed

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 …

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

2025 INSC 578Appeal(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 …

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

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 893Dismissed

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 …

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

2024 INSC 880Disposed 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 …

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusM/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD.

2024 INSC 572

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPURversusJINDAL DRUGS LTD.

2024 INSC 354Dismissed

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 …

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

2023 INSC 951Disposed 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 …

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 487Disposed 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 …

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

2022 INSC 1078Dismissed

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 …

WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LTD.versusCOMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA

2021 INSC 158Appeal(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 …

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

2020 INSC 513Dismissed

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 …

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

2020 INSC 381Dismissed

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 …

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 1055Appeal(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 …

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 407Appeal(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 …

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

2019 INSC 294Dismissed

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 …

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

2018 INSC 333Directions 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 …

M/S SHANTI FRAGRANCESversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 971Hearing 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 …

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

2015 INSC 921Disposed 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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S NESTLE INDIA LIMITED

2015 INSC 856Dismissed

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 …

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

2015 INSC 800Dismissed

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 …

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

2015 INSC 756Appeal(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. …

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

2015 INSC 748Dismissed

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 …

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

2015 INSC 742Dismissed

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 …

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

2015 INSC 503Appeal(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" …

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

2015 INSC 442Disposed 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 …

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

2015 INSC 413Disposed 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, …

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

2015 INSC 391Appeal(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 …

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

2015 INSC 378Appeal(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 …

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

2015 INSC 275Appeal(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 …

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

2015 INSC 975Appeal(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. …

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

2015 INSC 234Appeal(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, …

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

2015 INSC 969Appeal(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 …

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS

2013 INSC 845Appeal(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 …

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

2013 INSC 537Dismissed

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% …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAIversusAYYAPPAN TEXTILES LTD.

2013 INSC 490Dismissed

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 …

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

2012 INSC 384Dismissed

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" …

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

2012 INSC 23Disposed 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 …

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

2012 INSC 22Dismissed

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 …

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2011 INSC 761Appeal(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 …

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

2011 INSC 658Appeal(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 …

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

2011 INSC 622Appeal(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 …

SARASWATI SUGAR MILLSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-ILL

2011 INSC 534Dismissed

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 …

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

2011 INSC 481Appeal(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 …

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

2011 INSC 470

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 …

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

2011 INSC 118Appeal(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 …

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

2010 INSC 829Matter 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 …

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

2010 INSC 830Dismissed

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 …

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

2010 INSC 823Dismissed

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 …

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

2010 INSC 785Disposed 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 …

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

2010 INSC 720Dismissed

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 …

L.M.L. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2010 INSC 631Dismissed

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 …

MADRAS CEMENTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2010 INSC 280Dismissed

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 …

BATA INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2010 INSC 204Appeal(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, …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-IversusM/S. CHARMINAR NON-WOVENS LTD.

2009 INSC 1116Dismissed

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 …

M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-III, DELHI

2009 INSC 1047Disposed off

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDOREversusM/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.

2009 INSC 975Matter referred to larger bench

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusSHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN LTD.

2009 INSC 488Disposed off

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 …

M/S. INDIA CINE AGENCIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

2008 INSC 1297Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

CAMLIN LIMITEDversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2008 INSC 1010Disposed off

Camlin Limited manufactures various inks, including marker inks and other inks used in pens. The Central Excise Tariff classifies "writing inks" under CSH 3215.10 (nil duty) and "other inks" under CSH 3215.90 (16% duty). The Tribunal, relying on the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN), placed …

BHUPENDRA STEEL (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2008 INSC 695Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALOREversusM/S. KARNATAKA AGRO CHEMICALS

2008 INSC 687Case Partly allowed

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 …

ORIENT CERAMICS & INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2008 INSC 554Dismissed

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, …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusINSULATION ELECTRICAL (P) LTD

2008 INSC 415Dismissed

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 …

M/S. LOHIA SHEET PRODUCTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2008 INSC 317Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Lohia Sheet Products imported copper/brass waste and scrap for making handicrafts and claimed exemption under Notification No.8/96‑CE (Entry 74.04) which provides a NIL rate of additional customs duty. The Customs authorities and the Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the exemption …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, T.N.versusM/S VINAYAGA BODY BUILDING INDUSTRY LTD.

2008 INSC 300Case Allowed

The respondent, Vinayaga Body Building Industry Ltd, manufactured motor cabs on duty‑paid chassis with a seating capacity of 12 passengers plus a driver. The chassis were invoiced by the manufacturer under sub‑heading 8706.29, but the Revenue classified the completed cabs under sub‑heading 8702.10, …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, GOAversusPHIL CORPORATION LTD.

2008 INSC 150Disposed off

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 …

NIRLEX SPARES PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2008 INSC 4Case Allowed

Nirlex Spares Pvt. Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of steel heads, printed a hexagonal artistic design on its corrugated boxes alongside its own brand names. The tax authorities held that the design was a monogram belonging to its marketing agent, L.M.S. Marketing Co., and therefore denied the …

M/S. MATHANIA FABRICSversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

2008 INSC 10Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard two civil appeals concerning the claim of exemption from excise duty for cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power under various notifications. In both cases the appellants used electric power for ancillary operations such as mixing chemicals, lifting water and …

FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2007 INSC 1213Dismissed

Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd manufactured condensing units at its Delhi plant and procured cooling units from local manufacturers. It assembled these components with pipe kits, cords, remote controls and performed quality checks at its Mumbai workshop, thereby creating a complete split …

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusVICCO LABORATORIES

2007 INSC 1186Dismissed

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 …

M/S. SARVESH REFRACTORIES (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

2007 INSC 1176Disposed off

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, …

M/S. JAI FIBRES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

2007 INSC 1156Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. MERCANTILE COMPANYversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

2007 INSC 1036Dismissed

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 …

CCE, LUCKNOWversusM/S. WIMCO LTD.

2007 INSC 1005Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusM/S. FRICK INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 960Case Partly allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusM/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.

2007 INSC 887Case Partly allowed

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 …

M/S. IBEX GALLAGHER PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

2007 INSC 843Disposed off

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 …

M/S. HMT LTD .versusCOMMNR. CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD

2007 INSC 755Dismissed

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 …

M/S. CONTINENTAL PROFILES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2007 INSC 659Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURversusM/S. MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD.

2007 INSC 561Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. SPAN DIAGNOSTICS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT

2007 INSC 500Disposed off

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 …

M/S PRAGATI SILICONS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

2007 INSC 468Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. ADHUNIK FOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD., U.P.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

2007 INSC 444Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IversusCHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD.

2007 INSC 437Disposed off

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 …

M/S. KEMROCKINDUSTRIES & EXPORTS LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

2007 INSC 351Disposed off

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 …

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

2007 INSC 238Case Partly allowed

Mis Mil India Ltd, a manufacturer of plant and equipment for soaps and detergents, entered into composite contracts with Godrej Soaps Ltd and Galaxy Surfactants Ltd to supply both its own equipment and duty‑paid bought‑out items such as motor‑pumps and heat exchangers directly to the sites. The …

M/S FARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

2007 INSC 54Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, SURAT-IIversusM/S. NIRMALA DYECHEM AND ANR.

2006 INSC 925Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARHversusM/S KHANNA INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

2006 INSC 917Case Partly allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURATversusM/S. ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD.

2006 INSC 820Dismissed

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 …

M/S. CRAFT INTERIORS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE & ANR.

2006 INSC 762Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

2006 INSC 681Dismissed

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" …

M/S. C.T. COTTON YARN LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2006 INSC 644Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARHversusM/S. PUNJAB LAMINATES PVT. LTD.

2006 INSC 545Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusCARRIER AIRCON LTD.

2006 INSC 396Dismissed

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 …

M/S. QUINN INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

2006 INSC 319

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 …

M/S. H.P.L. CHEMICALS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

2006 INSC 236Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S INDCON STRUCTURALS (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

2006 INSC 229Appeal(s) allowed

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. …

HINDUSTAN POLES CORPORATIONversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

2006 INSC 181Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. PUMA AYURVEDIC HERBAL (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR

2006 INSC 145Disposed off

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 …

M/S NORTH WEST SWITCHGEAR LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2006 INSC 84Disposed off

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 …

M/S MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2006 INSC 39Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S VIKRAM CEMENTversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2006 INSC 32Reference answered

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, …

ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

2006 INSC 25Dismissed

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 …

M/S. SHREE HARI CHEMICALS EXPORT LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 628Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUTversusM/S. MAHARSHI AYURVEDA CORPORATION LTD.

2005 INSC 595Dismissed

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 …

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL.

2005 INSC 591Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. COMPACK PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

2005 INSC 502Case Partly allowed

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 …

M/S. GOPAL ZARDA UDYOG AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2005 INSC 461Case Partly allowed

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 …

M/S. SHARP INDUSTRIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

2005 INSC 441Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABADversusM/S. ALDEC CORPORATION

2005 INSC 446Dismissed

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 …

M/S. ANAND NISHIKAWA CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

2005 INSC 435Appeal(s) allowed

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, …

IMPRESSION PRINTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

2005 INSC 377Dismissed

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 …

VIKRAM CEMENTversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2005 INSC 379Matter referred to larger bench

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 …

M/S. VADILAL CHEMICALS LTD.versusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 325Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. set up a small‑scale unit in Medak to produce liquor ammonia and to refill anhydrous ammonia into cylinders. It obtained a final eligibility certificate under the 1993 Government Order granting a five‑year sales‑tax holiday. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABADversusM/S. APEX TRADERS, SAHIBABAD

2005 INSC 315Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHYversusM/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.

2005 INSC 198Disposed off

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUMversusM/S. AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD., HUMBLI

2005 INSC 177Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the Tribunal’s order allowing Mis Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd. to deduct seven categories of expenditure from the assessable value of its instant hair‑colour product for the period 1988‑1993. The Tribunal had remanded the question of whether Akay …

M/S. DABUR (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR

2005 INSC 178Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court considered two products of Dabur Ltd., ‘Janam Ghunti’ and ‘Lal Tail’, for classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal had remitted the classification of ‘Janam Ghunti’ to the original authority, noting that its nature as an aqueous distillate, solution or …

M/S. NOBLE SYNTHETICS LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

2005 INSC 153Dismissed

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 …

THE TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD., BIHARversusTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA

2005 INSC 113Disposed off

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. manufactured parts of locomotive wagons and rolling stock at its Growth Shop in Adityapur and transferred them to its main plant in Jamshedpur for repair and maintenance of transport equipment used within the factory. The assessee claimed exemption under Notification No. …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusM/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD.

2005 INSC 111Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the classification of grey cotton canvas cloth, belting and duck manufactured by Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. The issue was whether these goods should be taxed under tariff headings 52.02/54.08 (non‑made‑up goods) or under heading 59.09/59.11 (made‑up …

M/S. CASTROL INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-I

2005 INSC 108Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. PAHWA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

2005 INSC 101Dismissed

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 …

M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

2005 INSC 102Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. W.P.I.L. LTD., GHAZIABADversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT, U.P.

2005 INSC 91Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

D.C.L. POLYSTER LTD., NAGPURversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

2005 INSC 94Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNEversusABHI CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.

2005 INSC 86Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABADversusM/S. CEAT LTD., NASIK

2005 INSC 82Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABADversusM/S. CEAT LTD., MUMBAI

2005 INSC 83Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNEversusM/S. BAJAJ TEMPO LTD.

2005 INSC 65Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. O.K. PLAY (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III, GURGAON

2005 INSC 61Dismissed

O.K. Play (India) Ltd., a toy manufacturer, classified activity desks, chairs, play tables, swings, slides, fun fliers, rockers and a play pool as "toys" under Central Excise Tariff Heading 95.03 and cleared them without duty. The Central Excise Department, after approving the classification list, …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA AND CHENNAIversusM.R.F. LTD., CHENNAI

2005 INSC 48Disposed off

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 …

M.K. KOTECHAversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2005 INSC 5Dismissed

M.K. Kotecha, a manufacturer of RCC pipes and collars, cleared the goods to lift‑irrigation schemes between April 1990 and June 1992, claiming they were captively consumed and filing a price‑list under Part VI(a) stating that comparable prices were not known. In reality, the appellant used a …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusM/S. EMKAY INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 700Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. KORES INDIA LTD., CHENNAIversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

2004 INSC 672Disposed off

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 …

M/S. SHYAM OIL CAKE LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

2004 INSC 668Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRYversusM/S. ACER INDIA LTD.

2004 INSC 544Dismissed

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 …

EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

2004 INSC 493Dismissed

Eagle Flask Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of plastic insulated wares and vacuum flasks, claimed exemption from central excise duty and licensing control under Notification 11/88 (NT) CE dated 15‑04‑1988 and Notification 53/88, which exempted certain plastic items. The company failed to file the …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusM/S. MODI ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD.

2004 INSC 456Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusM/S ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ANR.

2004 INSC 397Disposed off

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 …

M/S. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA

2004 INSC 337Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

M/S. MENTHA AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

2004 INSC 342Case Partly allowed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusM/S. SUSMA TEXTILE PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 344Dismissed

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 …

M/S. MULLER AND PHIPPS (INDIA) LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I

2004 INSC 354Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

UGAM CHAND BHANDARIversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

2004 INSC 356Case Partly allowed

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 …

M/S. ICPA HEALTH PRODUCTS (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

2004 INSC 291Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNAversusM/S. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.

2004 INSC 131Dismissed

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 …

ITW SIGNODE INDIA LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2003 INSC 647Case Partly allowed

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 …

UNION OF INDIAversusAHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 579Dismissed

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 …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusM/S. SHARMA CHEMICAL WORKS

2003 INSC 267Dismissed

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 …

M/S. SUNNY INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

2003 INSC 183Dismissed

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 …

D.P. LONversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

2003 INSC 181Dismissed

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 …

SANDEN VIKAS (INDIA) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2003 INSC 144Appeal(s) allowed

Sanden Vikas (India) Ltd., a manufacturer of car air‑conditioning kits, claimed exemption under Notification No.166/86‑CE by classifying its kits under Item 5 of Heading 8415. The Assistant Collector treated the kits as air‑conditioners under Item 3, leading to a demand for duty. After the amendment …

M/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALOREversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

2003 INSC 120Case Partly allowed

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). …

FORBES GOKAK LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2003 INSC 121Disposed off

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 …

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

2003 INSC 117Dismissed

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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS ETC.versusM/S. I.T.C. LTD., BIHAR ETC.

2003 INSC 69Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

G.S. AUTO INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

2003 INSC 16Disposed off

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 …

M/S. ALPINE INDUSTRIESversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.

2003 INSC 11Dismissed

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, …

KEDIA AGGLOMERATED MARBLES LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2003 INSC 12Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

FLASH LABORATORIES LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.

2002 INSC 568Dismissed

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 …

I.T.C. LIMITEDversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

2002 INSC 495Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

CEMENTO CORPORATION LTD.versusCOLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE

2002 INSC 435Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusONKAR S. KANWAR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 411Disposed off

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, …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAYversusMAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED

2002 INSC 405Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

STANDARD PENCILS (P) LTD. ETC. ETC.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

2002 INSC 400Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSONIC ELECTROCHEM (P) LTD. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 395Dismissed

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 …

SODANI CEMENT AND CHEMICALS (P) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

2002 INSC 374Appeal(s) allowed

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 …

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusHINDUSTAN SANITARYWARE & INDUSTRIES

2002 INSC 375Dismissed

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 …