Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944

Texmaco Ltd. manufactured wagon bodies for the Railways and mounted them on wheel sets supplied free of charge by the Railways. Its invoices reflected only the price of the wagon bodies, excluding the wheel sets, and excise duty was paid on this invoice value. The Revenue demanded duty on the wheel sets, arguing that t…

Calcutta Chromotype Ltd., a manufacturer of playing cards, sold its entire output to its sole distributor, M/s Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Both companies had common directors and their shares were held by members of the Sharma family. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise treated the distributor as a "related pers…

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which had held that hydrogenated rice bran oil manufactured by Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. fell under Tariff Item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Department argued that the hydrogenation process 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…

J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., a composite mill, produced yarn as an intermediate product and then wove it into fabrics on the same premises. The issue was whether the yarn was liable to central excise duty under the amended Rule 9 and Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which were given retrospectiv…

The Central Excise Collector appealed against several sugar factories claiming that they were not entitled to the excise‑duty rebate under four Government notifications because the factories had produced no sugar in the corresponding periods of the base year. The factories argued that the phrase “quantity of sugar prod…

Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. manufactured various papers, including wrapping paper, and removed 4,000 kg of wrapping paper from its factory without paying excise duty. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice under Rules 9(1), 173‑F and 173‑G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, alleging duty evasion. The assessee contend…

Aditya Mills Ltd. produced a yarn called PPRF, made by doubling two plies of polyester spun yarn with one ply of rayon filament yarn. The company claimed that excise duty had already been paid on the component yarns and sought to clear the product under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules. The authorities directed th…

The case concerned a show‑cause notice issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for alleged short levy of excise duty by a sole proprietor who died in 1989. The legal heirs challenged the notice, arguing that the Act contains no provision to continue assessment against a dead person’s estate. The Supreme Cou…

The respondent, Protein Products of India Ltd., manufactures ossein and gelatine from crushed bones and claimed exemption from excise duty under the 30 June 1979 notification that listed "crushed bones and bone products" as exempt items. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that these products…

Jay Engineering Works Ltd., a manufacturer of electric fans, affixed nameplates (tariff item 68) to its fans and claimed proforma credit under Notification No. 201/79‑CE, which allows credit for inputs used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The Assistant Collector disallowed the credit, but the Collector (Appeals)…

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, a statutory body registered under the Factories Act, operated a concrete unit (licensed) and a wood‑working unit (unlicensed) whose products were used only in its own buildings. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging duty evasion on the wood unit. The Excise Trib…

Indian Oxygen Ltd., a manufacturer of compressed oxygen and dissolved acetylene, sold its products to government undertakings at rates fixed by the Department of Goods and Services and to other buyers at higher slab‑based prices, also levying delivery, collection, cylinder deposit and rental charges. The company claime…

Snow White Industrial Corporation, a Madras partnership manufacturing paint, entered into a written agreement with Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., a Calcutta firm, designating Gillanders as the "sole selling agents" for its product across India. The agreement contained clauses for return of unsold stock after two years, re…

The respondents, manufacturers of cycle lamps and automotive chains, sought to have the factory‑gate price treated as the assessable value for excise duty, arguing that their distributors were not "related persons" under Section 4(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector had held the distri…

Gujarat State Fertilizers Co., a manufacturer of fertilizers, ammonia and chemicals, claimed a concessional excise duty rate on raw naptha used to produce ammonia and a total exemption on ammonia used to make molten urea, invoking Notification No. 75/1984 and Notification No. 40/1985. The Revenue argued that because th…

Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co., a maker of injection moulding machines, also produced a part called "Tie Bar Nuts" which it initially classified under tariff item 68 (the residuary category). The Central Excise department directed re‑classification under item 52 (bolts and nuts) and the Collector of Central Excise i…

The State of Kerala appealed against the Agro Industrial Trading Corporation, which claimed exemption from sales tax on PVC cloth under item 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The issue was whether the definition of "cotton fabrics" referred to in the Act, taken from the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, sh…

Cibatul Ltd (the seller) entered into agreements with Ciba Geigy of India Ltd (the buyer) to manufacture various resins under a jointly drawn programme. The buyer tested and approved each batch before the seller could sell the goods to it, and the buyer’s trade‑marks were affixed on approved goods. The seller declared …

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 …

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. claimed a refund of excise duty paid on Light Diesel Oil and Furnace Oil supplied as ship's stores for foreign‑going vessels, arguing that under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules no duty was payable on goods exported directly from a bonded warehouse. The Assistant Collector reject…

M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., a motor‑vehicle manufacturer, sold waste and scrap of aluminium and iron‑steel and claimed that no excise duty was payable on such sales. The Commissioner of Central Excise raised a demand for excise duty, which the company contested. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal hel…

M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. imported nylon woven dipped diffusion resistance fabric and paid the additional duty levied under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The importer claimed a refund, contending that the goods fell under the exemption Notification No. 55/78 as "textured yarn produced out of base yarn" and should attrac…

The Collector of Central Excise issued a demand that Banswara Syntex Ltd. pay excise duty on single‑ply yarn used for doubling or multifolding, alleging short payment. The company argued that duty should be payable only after the yarn was doubled, contending that the process did not create a new product and that waste …

Kosan Metal Products Ltd, a manufacturer of LPG valves, claimed a set‑off of excise duty on brass rods received from another company under Notification 178/77. The rods were later re‑classified, and the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice under Rule 10 demanding recovery of Rs 51,261.88 and a pe…

Andhra Sugar Ltd. manufactured acetic anhydride and claimed refunds of excise duty, asserting that the product was a "drug intermediate" exempt under Notification 55/75 CE (as amended by 62/78 CE). The Assistant Collector allowed the refund, but the Collector (Appeals) reversed the order, and the Customs, Excise and Go…

Mahalakshmi Glass Works manufactured glass bottles and sold them packed in gunny bags and cartons, which it claimed were durable and returnable, and therefore the cost of such packing should be excluded from the assessable value under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The company paid duty o…

Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., a small-scale manufacturer using waste paper and cereal straw, sought the concessional excise rates under Notification No. 25 of 1984, which excluded "coated paper (including waxed paper)" from the benefit. The factory produced art paper and chromo paper, both coated varieties used for …

The Union of India appealed against the renewal of a salt‑pan licence granted to the respondents, Laxman Gajanan Desai and others, on the ground that title to the land was still in dispute. The Bombay High Court had directed that the licence could be renewed without the respondents conceding title, pending a decision b…

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to Ramdev Tobacco Company in 1972 alleging unaccounted tobacco and later imposed a duty demand and penalty through adjudication proceedings. The company challenged the order, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the proceedings were barred by t…

The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and other steel manufacturers were required by the Joint Plant Committee (JPC) and Steel Priority Committee (SPC) to add certain elements to the ex‑works price of iron and steel for funds such as the Steel Development Fund. The Central Excise Department contended that excise duty was paya…

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…

M/s IDL Chemicals Ltd. manufactures explosives using 80% ammonium nitrate melt purchased from SAIL. An exemption notification dated 11 June 1969 exempted such ammonium nitrate from excise duty under Tariff Item 14HH, provided the licence and bond were obtained. The Central Board later reclassified the nitrate under Tar…

Goodyear India Ltd manufactured tyres of size 1800 mm and above for heavy moving vehicles such as dumpers and earth‑movers. Excise duty was levied on these tyres as "tyres for motor vehicles" at 60% ad valorem. The company claimed a refund, arguing that such tyres should be classified under the residuary sub‑item 3 "al…

The Collector of Central Excise, Madras filed statutory appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal and sought condonation of delay for those appeals. A Single Judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the condonation applications under Order VI Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules, 19…

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 …

Hindustan Polymers, a manufacturer of fusel oil and styrene monomer, sold most of its product in bulk via tankers, but occasionally delivered it in drums that were supplied by the buyers at no charge. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices demanding that the value of these drums be added to the assessable value of the g…

Real Optical Co. imported Rough Ophthalmic Blanks, which are glass articles used specifically for manufacturing spectacle lenses. The Customs authorities levied counter‑vailing duty on the basis that the blanks fell under Tariff Item 23‑A(4) ("other glass, glassware including tableware"), which carries a higher rate th…

Mac Laboratories, a manufacturer of Kemicetine Vaginal Suppositories containing chloramphenicol, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 116/69‑CE (as amended) which exempts "chloramphenicol and its esters for oral and parenteral use". The department issued notices denying exemption, arguing that the …

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., a manufacturer of iron and steel pipes, tubes and poles, claimed that its poles were assessable under tariff item 26AA (pipes and tubes) and were exempt from excise duty under a notification. After the introduction of a residuary tariff item 68 in 1975, the revenue re‑classified the…

Parle Exports (P) Ltd manufactured non‑alcoholic beverage bases such as Gold Spot, Limca and Thumps Up under Tariff Item 68 without a valid central excise licence and was assessed duty and penalty. The company claimed exemption under Notification No. 55/75 CE, which exempts "all kinds of food products and food preparat…

Star Paper Mills Ltd., a paper manufacturer, claimed exemption from excise duty on paper cores used in its production process, arguing that the cores were "component parts" under Notification No. 201/79. The Central Excise authorities rejected the claim, but the Appellate Collector allowed it; the Customs, Excise and G…

GTC Industries Ltd., a cigarette manufacturer, was served with three show cause notices demanding excise duty for different periods and factories. The High Court allowed the revenue to adjudicate the first notice but ordered that the adjudication order not be communicated to the assessee, later directing that the seale…

Triveni Glass Ltd., a manufacturer of sheet glass, challenged the inclusion of the cost of wooden crates used for packing its glass sheets in the assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector had included the packing cost, whereas the Collector (Appeals) had excluded it, leading…

Samrat International, a manufacturer of hacksaw and bandsaw blades, filed a classification list with an incorrect duty rate and later revised it. While awaiting approval of the list, it cleared goods under the self‑removal procedure, debiting duty in its personal ledger. It claimed a refund of excess duty for the perio…

O.R.G. Systems (appellant) supplied raw materials, specifications and designs to other firms which manufactured complete computers with etched‑in software and sold them to O.R.G. Systems. The computers, along with imported peripheral devices and systems software, were cleared by the manufacturers after payment of excis…

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…

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…

The respondent, a manufacturer of trailers and steel furniture, sought a refund of excise duty on the ground that the aggregate value of clearances of both items in the preceding financial year was below Rs 20 lakhs, invoking paragraph 2(ii) of Notification No. 80/80. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim because …

The case concerns refunds of excise and customs duties collected contrary to law. The Supreme Court examined the validity of Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as amended in 1991, which restricts refunds to claimants who have not passed on the burden of duty to others. The Court overruled its earli…

Pond's India Ltd., a manufacturer of talc and face powder, claimed a deduction for the cost of secondary packing (master cartons) used for transporting small packs to wholesale dealers. The claim was initially approved but later disallowed by the Assistant Collector, who treated the outer cartons as non‑deductible unde…

PEFCO Foundry Chemicals Ltd manufactured cylinder liners by casting iron and then machining and honing them before delivering the goods to Indian Railways. The Central Excise authorities treated the liners, at the time of supply, as fully machined machine parts liable to duty under Entry 68, while the appellant argued …

Padmini Products, a manufacturer of agarbatis and dhoop sticks, claimed exemption from excise duty and licensing on the ground that the products were "handicrafts" under Notification 55/75 and thus exempt under Notification 111/78. The Collector rejected the claim, holding the items were not handicrafts; the Tribunal a…

Bombay Chemical Private Ltd manufactured disinfectant fluids and claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 55/75‑CE (as amended by Notification No. 62178 in 1978) which added Item 18 covering insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, holding that di…

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 Revenue appealed against orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal that had allowed exemption from excise duty to Rajasthan State Chemical Works and Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. under Notification No.179/77 CE, which exempts goods where no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of powe…

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…

Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd challenged a show‑cause notice issued on 20 May 1982 seeking excise duty for the period June 1976 to February 1981, arguing that it was beyond the six‑month limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Karnataka High Court had earlier stayed only the collection of …

Mafatlal Fine Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. deferred payment of yarn excise duty under Rule 49A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The cotton fabrics produced were subjected to calendering and shearing before clearance. The question was whether these finishing operations transformed the "grey" (unprocessed) fabric …

Tata Iron and Steel Co. sold scrap generated during its iron and steel manufacturing process to other parties for conversion into steel ingots. The Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the scrap was liable to duty under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, treating it as a semi‑fin…

Mis Astra Pharmaceuticals manufactured 20% dextrose injections, a drug listed in the Indian Pharmacopoeia and therefore exempt from central excise duty. The company marked its containers with the name "AP‑Astra", which the Revenue Department argued created a monogram establishing a relationship between the medicine and…

Krishna Carbon Paper Co. manufactured carbon paper and cleared it from its factory in 1979 without paying central excise duty. The Revenue issued a notice demanding duty, arguing that carbon paper was covered under tariff item 17(2) (coated paper) since the 1976 amendment of the Central Excise Tariff. The company conte…

Doaba Co‑operative Sugar Mills received an excess‑production rebate of Rs 5,60,679.40 under Notification 108/78. The Superintendent later issued a show‑cause notice for recovery of the alleged excess amount. The Assistant Collector held that no excess existed and that the notice was barred by limitation, dropping the d…

I.T.C. Ltd, a cigarette manufacturer, paid excise duty based on the price to secondary wholesale dealers, a mistake of law later corrected by the Supreme Court's Valtas decision. It filed five refund applications; three were allowed, two were rejected as time‑barred, but the Delhi High Court set aside the limitation an…

Burn Standard Company Ltd., a manufacturer of railway wagons, received certain components such as wheel‑sets and axle boxes from the Railway Board free of charge, which it incorporated into the wagons it supplied. The company invoiced the Railway Board for the wagons without including the value of these "free supply it…

Bharat Forge & Press Industries manufactures pipe fittings such as elbows, bends and reducers from steel pipes and tubes on which excise duty has already been paid. The Department classified these fittings under the residuary tariff entry 68, arguing they are a distinct commercial commodity, while the appellant contend…

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…

Elson Machines Ltd., a manufacturer of electric motors, claimed exemption under Notification No. 80/80‑C.E. (dated 19‑June‑1980) which allowed small‑scale manufacturers to clear specified goods for home consumption provided the aggregate clearance value did not exceed Rs 15 lakhs. The company cleared Rs 13.43 lakhs of …

Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. assembled three components – a platform, load cells and an indicating system – to create a complete weighbridge, for which excise duty was imposed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The company contended that it only manufactured the indicating system, a component alread…

Thermax Ltd. manufactured high‑pressure boilers and, in addition to the price of the boilers, separately charged customers for design, engineering, installation and commissioning services. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the installation …

Punjab Anand Lamp Industries manufactured printed sleeves for packing electric bulbs and tube lights. The Collector of Central Excise classified these sleeves as items under Tariff Item 17(3) and demanded excise duty. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the sleeves could not be described a…

Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., a glass manufacturer whose factory was closed after a strike, reduced its advertising expenditure. Its bulk purchaser, Mis Darshak Ltd., began advertising the glass to boost sales. The Central Excise authorities issued a show‑cause notice demanding duty on the basis that the advertising c…

Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., a soap manufacturer, sought a rebate under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, relying on Notifications 46/72, 153/73 and 25/75 which grant exemption for soap made from indigenous rice bran oil. The company used rice bran oil that was pre‑treated into rice bran fatty acid in a separate…

Bakelite Hylam Ltd., a manufacturer of laminated sheets made from paper, cotton fabric and glass fabric (known as Prepeg‑P, Prepeg‑F and Prepeg‑G), challenged the classification of its products under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal had placed Prepeg‑F under Item 19(III), Prepeg‑P under Item 17(2) and Prepeg‑G u…

The Union of India issued notifications fixing tariff values for sulphuric acid and liquid chlorine under Section 3(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, using a weighted‑average price methodology. Century Manufacturing Co. challenged these notifications, arguing that excise duty should be based only on manufac…

The appellant, Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd., challenged a decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which held that Circular No. 42 of 1997 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs conflicted with Notification No. 2/95‑CE (and its amendments) issued under Section 5A(1) of the Central Exc…

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.…

Seshasaye Paper & Boards Ltd, a manufacturer of paper assessable under Tariff Item 17 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, claimed deductions for both a trade discount and a "service charge discount" paid to its dealers (indentors) while fixing the normal price for excise duty under Section 4 of the Act. The Central Ex…

Easland Combines, a small‑scale manufacturer, had its classification list approved and claimed exemption under a notification. The Central Excise authorities later issued a show‑cause notice demanding differential duty, alleging a willful misstatement regarding its SSI registration. The Tribunal invoked the extended fi…

The respondent, Dhanalakshmi Paper and Board Mills, set up a paper‑board factory and began production on 7 May 1964. It claimed a concessional excise duty rate under a Government of India notification dated 1 March 1964, but the revenue department denied the benefit because clause (a) of Proviso 3 required that a manuf…

The appellant, a Central Excise Superintendent, filed a complaint alleging that Reliance Industries Ltd. evaded excise duty by taking credit without complying with Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After Rule 56A was omitted by a 1994 notification, the respondent sought discharge, but the trial court framed a…

M/s Dabur India Ltd. manufactured a homeopathic toothpaste called Homeodent for M/s Sharda Boiron Laboratories between 1985 and 1988 and paid excise duty under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The State Excise authorities later claimed that Homeodent contained alcohol (through mother‑tincture) and therefore attrac…

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…

Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. assembled a paper‑making machine in its factory using duty‑paid components and some parts fabricated on site, and anchored it to a concrete base. The Central Excise authority levied excise duty on the machine under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, treating it as an immovable …

The appellant, H.M.M. Ltd., manufactures Horlicks at its Rajahmundry plant using barley malt (Tariff Item 68) as a dutiable input. Only a portion of the finished Horlicks is cleared at Rajahmundry, while the bulk is sent to other factories for packaging and clearance. The appellant claimed credit for the entire excise …

M/s. Gaurav Distributors (P) Ltd. purchased ball bearings that had been exported by SKF Bearing (I) Ltd. under export bonds and re‑imported them in March 1995. The appellant claimed exemption from customs duty under the proviso to Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the phrase "goods exported in bond" sho…

Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works imported brass scrap and argued that the "additional duty" under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act was a counter‑vailing duty that could not be levied because brass scrap is not manufactured in India and that it should be treated as a "master alloy" exempted under Notification …

The respondent, a manufacturer of vegetable products, filed a MODVAT declaration on 10‑Mar‑1987 but had wrongly availed credit from 1‑Mar‑1987. The Excise authorities issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, invoking the six‑month limitation period to recover the wrongly t…

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and another imported asbestos fibre before 1986 and were demanded additional customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants argued that the fibre, obtained by merely separating it from the parent rock, was not a manufactured article and therefore not liable to …

Shiva Glass Works Co. Ltd., a licensee under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, paid excise duty on glassware based on price lists submitted for provisional assessment. A search revealed two sets of bills, indicating that duty had been paid at lower rates than the actual sale prices. The Assistant Collector issued…

Multimetals Ltd. manufactured copper pipes and tubes and claimed exemption from excise duty on the total quantity of copper and copper alloys used, including the material lost during manufacturing. The Central Excise Department argued that the exemption should be calculated only on the weight of the finished pipes and …

The respondents, manufacturers of cellulosic spun yarn, were initially allowed a concessional excise rate but later faced a show‑cause notice and were assessed a large duty. They deposited the disputed amount in the High Court, obtained a conditional order permitting withdrawal of the deposit, and later secured an appe…

The respondent, Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises, manufactured sorbitol and also produced starch hydrolysate, which it used internally. The Collector of Central Excise claimed that the hydrolysate was glucose, fell under Item 1‑E of the Central Excise Tariff and was liable to excise duty. The respondent argued that the hyd…

Atul Glass Industries, a manufacturer of glass mirrors, challenged the classification of its products for excise duty after the 1979 amendment of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Revenue argued that glass mirrors fell under Tariff Item 23A(4) ('other glass and glass ware') and that glass screens for motor vehicles…

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…

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., a manufacturer of power‑driven (monoblock) pumps, purchased electric motors on which excise duty had already been paid and used them as components. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise assessed additional duty, holding that the duty paid on the motors could not be deducted from the assessa…

Metal Box India Ltd., a manufacturer of metal containers, sold its goods to Ponds (I) Ltd., a wholesale buyer, under agreements that allowed interest‑free advances and trade discounts. The tax authorities treated the contract price as the net price after discounts and omitted the value of the advances, leading to a sho…

The dispute concerned whether the process of printing and decorating glass bottles constitutes "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and consequently whether excise duty is payable on the printed bottles. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd manufactured plain glass bottles (Tariff Item 23‑A)…

The appellant-assessee, a manufacturer of chewing tobacco, challenged a Tribunal order that excluded the value of packing material when computing the assessable value of the goods and that used the net weight of tobacco (excluding packaging) to determine the value per kilogram for exemption under Notification No.35/79-…

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…

Mis. Basant Industries, a partnership licensed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, supplied raw materials and components such as castings, shafts and impellers to independent licensed manufacturers for the production of oil‑driven pumps. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the pum…

Godrej Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of liquid hair dye, was served with three demand notices for excise duty at the rate of 105% under Tariff Item 14F (hair lotion) for the period January‑December 1982. The company argued that its product, being a hair colouring agent, fell under the residuary Tariff Item 68 introduc…

The respondents, M.M. Khambhatwala, manufactured certain excisable goods in their factory and claimed exemption under Notification 80/80-CE. They also obtained agarbatti, amla podi and dhup from household ladies who worked outside the factory without power, for which the respondents paid piece‑rate wages. The revenue a…

Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. manufactured a non‑cellulosic spun yarn composed of 52% polypropylene and 48% viscose, which was classified under Tariff Item 18E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The company claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 332177 dated 1 December 1977, which…

Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd manufactured thrust washers, thrust half washers and wrapped bushes for motor vehicles and cleared them under Notification No. 99/1971, which exempted motor vehicle parts except those listed, including thin‑walled bearings. In 1978 a Board meeting with trade representatives concluded that such…

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against New Tobacco Co. challenging the company's claim that a Central Excise notification dated 30‑Nov‑1982 became effective only when it was made available to the public on 8‑Dec‑1982, not on the date of its printing in the Gazette. The company had paid duty at the lower rate …

S.G. Glass Works Private Ltd manufactured glassware manually, using compressed air only in the second mould. The Department issued a show‑cause notice classifying the goods under serial No.1 of Notification No. 329/77, which attracted a higher excise duty, but the appellant argued that the use of compressed air, even i…

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…

Sera Kella Glass Works, a sheet‑glass manufacturer, filed price lists and paid excise duty based on its own calculations. The Assistant Collector issued several show‑cause notices, directed provisional assessment under Rule 9‑B and later modified the price list, disallowing most deductions. The Patna High Court quashed…

Crown Re‑roller (P) Ltd., a re‑rolling mill in Orissa, purchased iron and steel scrap from registered dealers. The State of Orissa, under an industrial policy, exempted raw material purchases from sales tax, but a 1989 notification shifted the taxable event to the first point of sale. The company claimed a refund of sa…

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against a Tribunal order that held Decent Dyeing Co. not liable for the differential excise duty on base acrylic yarn used for texturising. The dyeing company paid duty at Rs 10 per kg under Notification No. 125/75‑CE, assuming the base yarn’s duty had already been discharged by…

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, both before and after its amendment by the Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 1973, to determine how the "value" of an excisable article should be computed for excise duty. The Court held that the value is not l…

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise appealed after a Special Judge acquitted Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and its directors of offences under the Central Excise Act and IPC 120‑B. The acquittal was challenged on the ground that confessional statements recorded by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs A…

M/s B.P.L. India Ltd. imported 100 kits of VTRs with colour monitors in semi‑knocked‑down condition and paid countervailing duty under tariff item 68. It then assembled the kits into finished VTRs/colour monitors at its factory and cleared them without paying central excise duty, without intimating the authorities and …

The Collector of Central Excise, Patna appealed against the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal’s order that the value of motor vehicles for the automobile cess should be computed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as per Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984. The assessee, Tata Engineeri…

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise appealed against Bata India Ltd. alleging that the manufacturer could not claim exemption under a notification that exempted footwear valued up to Rs.60 per pair when its wholesale price exceeded that limit. Bata argued that by deducting the 10% excise duty from the wholesale p…

United Phosphorus Ltd., a manufacturer of insecticides, produced three intermediate chemicals during its process. The Collector of Central Excise held these intermediates liable for excise duty, but the Collector (Appeals) reversed the decision, finding them non‑marketable. The Revenue appealed to the Central Excise an…

M/s Khaitan Electrical Ltd., a manufacturer of electric fans, sought classification of four fan models (Mini, Tini, Chiki, Miki) under Tariff Item 33(1)(a) to avail a 5% ad valorem excise duty exemption under Notification No.46/84. The Assistant Collector classified the fans as cabin/carriage fans under Item 33(1)(b), …

Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. lamination of duty‑paid kraft paper with polyethylene produced polyethylene‑laminated kraft paper. The issue was whether this process amounted to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and thus attracted excise duty. The Collector (Appeals) held it was not…

The Union of India sought excise duty on calcium carbide produced by Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (DCM) for use as an intermediate in its acetylene gas plant. DCM argued that the carbide was not marketable—lacking purity and proper packaging—and therefore not an excisable commodity. The Appellate Collector and …

National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., a recognised refinery, manufactured ethylene, butylene and propylene and claimed that these products fell under Item 11‑AA(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, thereby qualifying for an exemption notification of 21‑December‑1967. The Revenue, relying on a 24‑Nov‑1984 Trade Notice,…

The appellants imported polyvinyl alcohol and argued that, under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, they should pay the same duty rate as an Indian manufacturer, i.e., the concessional 10% ad valorem rate provided by Excise Notification No. 185 of 1983, provided the raw material (vinyl acetate monomer) had appr…

Elphinstone Metal Rolling Mills, a manufacturer of copper sheets, wires and billets, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notifications 74/65‑CE and 119/66‑CE on the basis that its products were made from old copper scrap purchased from the open market. The Central Excise authorities issued show‑cause notices and r…

The Union of India (Revenue) appealed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had awarded 10% interest to Mis Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd. on a rebate of Rs.15,07,791 granted for excess sugar production. The Tax Tribunal had allowed the rebate but declined the assessee's prayer for 18% interest. The…

The petitioners, processors of grey cotton and man‑made fabrics, challenged the levy of excise duty on operations such as bleaching, dyeing and printing, arguing that these were merely processing and not "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Gujarat High Court held the opposite…

The appellant, a textile mill, was served with two show‑cause notices under Section 11‑A of the Central Excises and Salt Act for alleged excise duty on yarn removed within the factory for the period November 1980 to December 1981. The Delhi High Court had stayed the effect of a circular dated 24‑September‑1980, and the…

Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of spun yarn, obtained approval for its product under Tariff Item 18‑III(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which attracted a lower duty. After chemical analysis, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a demand notice asserting that the yarn should fall under …

Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd, a manufacturer of batteries and torches, packed its products in small boxes, medium cartons and then 7‑ply corrugated cartons. The issue was whether the cost of the 7‑ply cartons had to be included in the assessable value of the goods under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Sa…

The appellants, Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and another, paid 50% of the assessed excise duty and furnished bank guarantees for the remaining 50% under interim Supreme Court orders. After the Supreme Court allowed their appeal on the classification of toilet soap, the appellants sought a refund of the duty and the bank guara…

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 pouring it into bleaching …

The Government of India appealed against the assessment orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise which allowed Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (MRF) various deductions under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, while disallowing others. The key disputes concerned whether expenses incurred in maint…

Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. manufactured wireless sets, tape recorders and tape players that were unbranded in its price list but were sold exclusively under the "Bush" brand to Bush India Ltd. and its authorised dealers. The Revenue issued a Show‑Cause Notice alleging that Bush India was a "related person" and tha…

Purolator India Ltd., a manufacturer of filters, declared its assessable value for excise duty based on the price at which it sold the goods to its customers under various brand names. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices demanding that the assessable value be computed on the basis of the price at which the customers …

Jaishri Engineering Co. applied for a central excise licence to manufacture goods classified under Tariff Item 68 and claimed exemption under notifications 89/79‑CE and 105/80‑CE. The Excise Department later issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the company had manufactured and removed 14,88,838 pieces of nuts, whic…

Dunlop India Ltd manufactured cushion repair compound, tread repair compound and cover compound, which it asserted were used solely for repairing tyres and conveyor belts and therefore entitled to exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 71 of 1968. The Superintendent of Central Excise and the Collector reject…

Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. manufactured aluminium tubes by extrusion and performed post‑extrusion operations such as coating, printing and fitting plastic caps supplied by Colgate‑Palmolive. The Central Excise authority demanded duty on the tubes including the value of the caps, which the company contested, arguing th…

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. operated an electrical and mechanical workshop at Korba to repair mining equipment for adjacent coal mines. The Central Government had declared the workshop a "mine" under Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952. The assessee claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 63/9…

The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) manufactured prestressed cement concrete poles for its own use and argued that the poles were not "goods" under Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 because they were not sold and had no market. The Revenue contended that the poles were marketable, pointi…