Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Customs Act

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAIversusM/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS.

2018 INSC 64630 July 2018Reference answered

The case concerned the interpretation of Customs Notification No. 20/1999, under which the respondents claimed a concessional customs duty rate for imported vitamin E50 feed powder. The Customs department denied the benefit, classifying the goods under a higher duty heading, leading to a series of appeals up to the Sup

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPURversusPRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2023 INSC 41624 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, Prakash Chand Lunia, who dealt in silver, was found to have smuggled 146 slabs of silver which were confiscated by customs and a penalty imposed. He claimed the value of the confiscated silver as a business loss under Section 37(1) of the Income‑Tax Act, relying on the High Court's application of the Piar

BHARAT CHAUDHARYversusUNION OF INDIA

2021 INSC 87713 December 2021Disposed off

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized over 1.37 lakh tablets from four locations in Chennai, alleging they were psychotropic substances. Accused A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 (Bharat Chaudhary) were arrested; A-4 was detained based solely on statements of A-1 and A-3 recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. A specia

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAXversusM/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD.

2023 INSC 33210 April 2023Disposed off

Suzlon Energy Ltd imported engineering design and drawing blueprints from its sister companies abroad for manufacturing wind turbine generators and classified them as "paper" goods for customs, claiming nil duty and arguing they were not liable to service tax. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices demanding service tax

TOFAN SINGHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2013 INSC 7008 October 2013Matter referred to larger bench

Tofan Singh was convicted under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for allegedly trafficking 5.250 kg of heroin. The conviction rested primarily on a statement recorded by an investigating officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the appellant claimed was

NABHA POWER LIMITED & ANR.versusPUNJAB STATE POWER COROPORATION LIMITED & ANR.

2024 INSC 8335 November 2024Dismissed

The appellants, Nabha Power Ltd. and its associate, bid for a mega‑power project under a Request for Proposal (RFP) that required bidders to consider the law as defined in Clause 1.1 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). They argued that a press release dated 01‑Oct‑2009 announcing Cabinet approval of modifications to

K.T.V. HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2023 INSC 911 February 2023Case Partly allowed

K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. sought to continue operating a storage terminal and an underground pipeline for edible oil imported through Chennai Port. The Union of India, invoking the 2011 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification under the Environment Protection Act, granted post‑facto clearance under paragraph‑4.3,

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