Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001

4 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.versusM/S V.V.F LIMITED & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 34722 April 2020Disposed off

The Union of India issued an excise duty exemption for new industries in earthquake‑hit Kutch, promising a full cash/PLA refund. Subsequent notifications in 2008 limited the refund to a percentage based on actual value addition, citing tax‑evasion concerns. The original writ petitioners claimed the later notifications

LIPI BOILERS LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2025 INSC 129710 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Lipi Boilers Ltd. entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture and supply a bagasse‑fired boiler in CKD condition, with several bought‑out components delivered directly to the buyer’s site. The revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the value of these bought‑out items should be added to the boiler’

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGADversusM/S. ISPAT METALLICS INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS

2016 INSC 3856 May 2016Dismissed

Mis. Ispat Industries Ltd (IIL) and its sister concern Mis. Ispat Metallics Industries Ltd (IMIL) jointly procured iron ore pellets under a tripartite agreement with the supplier. IIL availed CENVAT credit on the entire quantity and later transferred the pellets to IMIL, reversing the credit and issuing debit notes for

MADRAS CEMENTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2010 INSC 2806 May 2010Dismissed

Madras Cements Ltd., a cement manufacturer, claimed Modvat credit for certain items it described as components, spares and accessories used in its mining operations during November‑December 1999. The Revenue argued that the items were not capital goods under Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules and disallowed the credi

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