Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAIversusM/S. FIAT INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR.

2012 INSC 36229 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, manufacturers of Fiat Uno cars, declared wholesale prices that were well below their manufacturing cost, claiming the price was the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging short levy and demanded differential duty, arguing that the pr

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR-IversusM/S. INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD.

2015 INSC 59625 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Indoramasynthetics (I) Ltd manufactured polyester fibre and sold it to two classes of domestic buyers: those holding advance licences (who surrendered them) and ordinary buyers. By surrendering their licences, the buyers enabled the assessee to obtain an advance licence for intermediate supply, allowing duty‑free impor

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-ILL

2015 INSC 60425 August 2015Disposed off

M/s Purolator India Ltd, a manufacturer of excisable filter elements, claimed deductions for cash discount, volume discount and sales tax while filing excise returns. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the cash‑discount deduction and affirmed duty on other items, leading to an appeal. The Supreme Court examine

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S NESTLE INDIA LIMITED

2015 INSC 85624 November 2015Dismissed

Nestle India Ltd, a 100% export‑oriented undertaking (EOU), manufactured instant tea wholly from indigenous raw materials and cleared it to two sister units under Notification 8/97‑CE and Notification 23/2003‑CE. The Commissioner issued a show‑cause notice asserting that, because the tea was captively consumed and not

M/S. K. R. C. D. (I) PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2015 INSC 34823 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/S K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. manufactured duplicate CDs on a job‑work basis using master tapes supplied by a distributor who owned the copyright. The distributor paid a lump‑sum royalty to the music producer and then sold the duplicated CDs to the market. The Revenue argued that the royalty value embedded in the master t

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 12917 February 2011Disposed off

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL), a central government PSU, challenged show‑cause notices issued by the Ministry of Finance that sought reversal of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs that had been written off. The adjudicating authority rejected ECIL’s claim that the write‑off complied with AS‑2, and the matter

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

2015 INSC 92115 December 2015Disposed off

TVS Motors Ltd., a manufacturer of two‑wheeled vehicles, sold its cars to dealers who performed pre‑delivery inspection (PDI) and free after‑sales service (ASS) at their own cost. The Central Excise Department sought to include the costs of PDI and ASS in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act,

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

2015 INSC 7427 October 2015Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise challenged M/s Ispat Industries for allegedly evading excise duty by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal and including freight and transit‑insurance charges in the assessable value for the period 28‑09‑1996 to 31‑03‑2003. The Court examined the evolution

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, ROHTAKversusMERINO PANEL PRODUCT LTD.

2022 INSC 12535 December 2022Disposed off

The appellant‑Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the assessee, Merino Panel Product Ltd, had undervalued sales of excisable decorative laminates to its sister concerns (Merino Industries Ltd and Merino Services Ltd). The Revenue used Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, read with Section 4(1)(a)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDAversusM/S. ACCURATE METERS LTD.

2009 INSC 2933 March 2009Dismissed

Accurate Meters Ltd supplied electric meters to various State Electricity Boards under two distinct contracts – one for the supply of meters and another for their transportation and insurance. The contracts stipulated that freight and insurance charges would be levied at average rates, not on actual cost, and the meter

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