Customs Tariff Act, 1975

M/S. MSCO Pvt. Ltd. imported stainless‑steel plates under a 1977 customs notification that granted a concessional duty provided the goods were used to manufacture specified articles and the finished articles were sold only to "industrial units". The company supplied certificates that the plates were used accordingly, b…

The appellant, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, challenged the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order granting project import benefits to Mis. Toyo Engineering India Ltd for auxiliary equipment used in setting up a fertilizer plant. The revenue authorities had rejected the application on the grou…

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 (self‑adhesive plastic shee…

ISPAT Industries Ltd imported iron ore pellets that were off‑loaded from the mother vessel at Bombay Floating Light (BFL) onto barges and taken to Dharamtar jetty. The Customs authorities added the barge transportation charges to the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, invoking Rule 9(2) of the …

Garden Silk Mills Ltd. and other importers brought several appeals challenging the Customs Department’s addition of landing charges to the CIF price of polyester yarn imported under CIF contracts for the purpose of determining assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that …

The Union of India challenged the validity of Notification Nos.102/87‑CE and 103/87‑CE which granted exemption from excise duty on iron and steel scrap from ship‑breaking only to importers who had paid customs duty at Rs.1,400 per Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT). The respondent, N.S. Rathnam & Sons, had paid a lower c…

Mihir Textiles Ltd. and another importer sought refund of customs duty on the basis that they were eligible for the 40% concessional rate under Entry 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Both had cleared their goods after paying full duty and later applied for registration of the import contract as a "project import"…

The Supreme Court examined two revenue appeals challenging CESTAT orders that classified imported liquid crystal display (LCD) panels under Chapter 90, heading 9013.8010 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, rather than under Chapter 85 headings such as 8529 or 8522. The revenue argued that the panels should be classified b…

Zuari Industries Ltd, a fertilizer manufacturer, sought to import a 6 MW captive power plant as part of a substantial expansion of its NPK plant under Project Import Regulations. The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilisers issued an Essentiality Certificate stating that the power plant was essential for the fertilizer proj…

The case concerned the customs duty exemption for magnetic tapes (IT software) imported by ONGC and Tullow India Operations Ltd. for seismic surveys under petroleum exploration contracts. The exemption notification required the importer to produce an essentiality certificate from the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons…

The case concerned the validity of the "pre‑import condition" introduced by the 2017 amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy 2015‑2020 and related customs notifications, which required exporters to pay IGST and compensation cess on inputs imported under an Advance Authorization (AA) and to satisfy a physical export requ…

Mis Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. imported a continuous ice‑cream freezer together with machines described as Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine. The importer claimed the latter were merely accessories to the freezer and should be classified under heading 84.15(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, attracting no coun…

The appellants imported oil from the UAE and declared it as Base Oil SN 50, but the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence re‑classified it as High Speed Diesel (HSD) and seized it. The Adjudicating Authority, CESTAT and the High Court each held the oil to be HSD, relying on three laboratory reports that tested only a por…

IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd imported a set of equipment for a cable TV "Head End" and declared the items individually under various tariff headings. The Customs Department alleged that the declaration was false, the goods were undervalued, and that software and related services, which were embedded in the equip…

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, the Kar Vivad Samadh…

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 …

Jawahar Mills Ltd. and other manufacturers claimed Modvat credit for duty paid on items such as power cables, capacitors, control panels, switches and air compressors, treating them as "capital goods" under Explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue disallowed the claim, but the Customs, Exc…

Vareliweaves Pvt. Ltd. imported partially oriented yarn (POY) and claimed exemption from countervailing duty (CVD) under a 1982 notification, arguing that the yarn fell in the 100‑750 denier category. The customs authorities, relying on a 1980 circular, treated the POY as belonging to the 75‑100 denier range and levied…

The petitioners challenged the Delhi High Court's order that allowed a writ filed by Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., which had adopted the interpretation that anti‑dumping duty is country‑specific rather than exporter‑specific, relying on the Reliance Industries judgment. The Supreme Court observed that the issues i…

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 Customs appealed against the Customs, Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal's order that upheld the respondents' claim for refund of auxiliary duty on timber imported from Burma. The respondents argued that, because timber from Burma was fully exempted under Notification No. 265/1982 and its successors, o…

The Collector of Customs appealed against a Customs Tribunal order that had allowed Western India Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. to obtain a refund of auxiliary duty paid on timber imports from Burma. Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 timber attracted a basic duty of 60%, but a notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act …

The case concerned the customs tariff classification of a signal decoder used by a cable operator to decode satellite signals received via a dish antenna. The Revenue (Commissioner of Customs) argued that the decoder should be classified under Entry 8528 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a "reception apparatus for tel…

Kay Kay Industries claimed a deemed MODVAT credit of Rs.77,546 in March 2000 based on invoices from its input supplier, who later was found not to have paid full excise duty for the period covered. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice, disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the adjudicating …

Mis Modipon Fibre Company, a manufacturer of nylon and polyester yarn, cleared its yarn to depots including Surat in Gujarat. A Gujarat notification of 19‑Oct‑1993 exempted yarn sold to special manufacturers in backward areas, allowing a turnover tax (TOT) rate of 0.5% instead of the normal 2%. The assessee claimed a 2…

K. Mohan & Co. imported metallised polyester film rolls from Japan and paid customs duty and countervailing duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The firm claimed a refund on the basis of notification No. 228/76 issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, which exempts "articles made of plastics" except th…

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…

Escorts Ltd., a tractor manufacturer, paid excise duty on inputs used to produce parts and transferred those parts to another factory of the same company under Notification No. 217/86-CE. The parts were then used to manufacture tractors on which duty was paid. The Commissioner of Central Excise denied MODVAT credit, ar…

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) imported pressure gauges for steam turbines and paid basic customs duty of 40% under heading 90.24 and an auxiliary duty of 5%. BHEL claimed a refund of the auxiliary duty, invoking Notification No. 35/79 (exemption for parts of articles falling under heading 84.04/05) and Notificati…

The appellants imported stainless steel circles in October 1980 and were assessed customs duty under Tariff Heading 73.15(2), which carried a higher rate. They contended that circles should be classified under the residuary sub‑heading 73.15(1) at a lower rate. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal …

The dispute concerned whether Adani Power Ltd. was entitled to an adjustment in its monthly tariff payments – including carrying costs – after the Ministry of Commerce and Industry withdrew SEZ duty and service‑tax exemptions in 2015‑16. The parties relied on Article 13 of their Power Purchase Agreements, which provide…

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 …

NCC Blue Water Products Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit, manufactured shrimp and shrimp seeds and sold them in the domestic tariff area (OTA) without the removal authorization of the Development Commissioner, contrary to the Exim Policy. The revenue issued a notice demanding excise duty under the proviso to Section 3…

M/S Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd imported dentifrice products from Nepal and claimed exemption from customs duties under Notification No. 37/96 issued pursuant to the India‑Nepal Treaty of Trade. After the introduction of Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act in 1998, a Special Additional Duty (SAD) was levied on the i…

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 rejecting the credit, arguin…

Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd., a small‑scale copier manufacturer, imported copiers in SKD/CKD form and declared a total value of Rs 99,612. The Collector of Customs, relying on quotations submitted with the licence application, valued the goods at Rs 7,15,485, held that the company had misdeclared the value and the…

The case concerned whether Mis. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. could claim MODVAT credit under Rule 57A for Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) and furnace oil used to generate electricity that was captively consumed in the manufacture of cement and caustic soda. The Revenue argued that electricity generation is a separate, non‑exci…

Spaco Carburetiors (India) Ltd imported a special purpose complex machine used to plug holes in carburetor bodies with lead shots. The Revenue classified it under entry 84.59 of the Customs Tariff (residuary entry) attracting 60% duty, while the importer argued it fell under entry 84.45/48 (machine tools) attracting 40…

The Supreme Court considered whether Notification 5/2019, issued under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act to raise the import duty on goods from Pakistan to 200%, applied retrospectively to bills of entry that had been presented and self‑assessed before the notification was uploaded to the e‑gazette at 20:46:58 on 16…

The Supreme Court examined whether a final anti‑dumping duty could be levied for the period between the expiry of a provisional duty and the issuance of a final duty notification. The Court held that Rule 20(2)(a) of the Anti‑Dumping Rules must be read in harmony with Rules 13 and 21 and with WTO Agreement Article 10.2…

The Government of India introduced the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme on 7 April 1997, exempting payment of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act for exporters registered at specified ports and inland container depots, but Guntur was omitted. A subsequent notification dated 27 November 199…

Rishiroop Polymers imported Acrylonitrile‑Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from Germany and Korea. The Designated Authority, under the Customs Tariff Act, found that such imports caused material injury to the domestic industry and imposed an anti‑dumping duty. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal later conve…

Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd filed an anti‑dumping petition alleging that imports of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) from several countries were injuring the domestic industry. The Designated Authority (DA) investigated, classified the imports under custom sub‑heading 4002.19, and recommended anti‑dumping duties which t…

The appellant, a Chinese manufacturer of lead‑acid batteries, challenged the imposition of anti‑dumping duty by the Designated Authority (DA) after the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal set aside the DA’s finding that the company operated on market‑economy principles. The domestic industry had initi…

Jaypee Rewa Cement, a cement manufacturer, used explosives to mine limestone, an essential raw material. The explosives attracted excise duty, and the company claimed credit for this duty under Rule 57‑A of the Central Excise Rules, arguing that the explosives were inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the fina…

The All India Float Glass Manufacturers Association complained that Indonesian exporters were selling float glass in India at predatory prices, alleging a restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act. The MRTP Commission issued an interim injunction restraining the exporter…

The appellant imported lead‑acid batteries from Bangladesh and the Designated Authority found that the quantity of these imports was less than 3% of total imports of like batteries, which under Rule 14(d) should have led to immediate termination of the anti‑dumping investigation. The Authority instead relied on the val…

The case concerned import of Styrene‑Butadiene Rubber (SBR) of the 1900 series, which the importer M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd. declared as ‘Lutex‑701’ and ‘Lutex‑780’ in its Bills of Entry. The Commissioner of Customs issued show‑cause notices alleging mis‑declaration and demanding confiscation, anti‑dumping duty, in…

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 8524.39/8524.90 or as software …

M/s. Gira Enterprises imported cyanuric chloride from China, declaring a value of US$5,001 per metric ton. The Customs Commissioner, relying on a computer printout that allegedly showed other imports of the same chemical at US$1,950 per metric ton, reassessed the value to US$1,860 per metric ton under Rule 5 of the Cus…

M/s H.C.L. Limited imported a Risograph machine and the Customs classified it under heading 84.72 (duplicating machines) attracting 65% duty. The importer contended that the machine is a printing device, specifically a screen‑printing machine, and should fall under heading 84.43, which attracts a lower 25% duty per Not…

The respondents, Rupa & Co. Ltd., are manufacturers of textile garments who imported various machines for fabric processing, inspection, knitting and dyeing under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme and claimed a 100% customs duty exemption under Notification No. 29/97-Cus. The Revenue Department denied th…

The petitioners, Jain Brothers, who import automobile spare parts, challenged Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, on the ground that including customs duty in the valuation of imported goods for the purpose of levying an additional duty equal to excise duty was unconstitutional and ultra vires. The Supreme Co…

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and others imported asbestos fibre, which they obtained by separating the fibre from its parent rock using manual and mechanical means, and paid customs duty under entry 25.01.32. They challenged the levy of additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the liability t…

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 that Recovit should b…

The importers, including Stoneman Marble Industries, were found to have imported rough marble blocks without the required licence and with mis‑declarations, leading to confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal reduced the redemptio…

The appellants, Shri Jee Sales Corporation and another, imported PVC resin relying on Notification No. 66 dated 15 March 1979 which exempted customs duty on such imports up to 31 March 1981. After they had opened letters of credit and the goods arrived, the Government issued Notification No. 205 on 16 October 1980 with…

Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd imported electrolytic manganese dioxide (91% purity) for dry‑battery manufacture and argued that it should be classified under heading 25.01/32(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which covers battery‑grade manganese dioxide in its crude or mechanically purified form and would not attract co…

The Commissioner of Customs alleged that Mis. Phoenix International Ltd (PIL) and its subsidiary Mis. Phoenix Industries Ltd (PIND) split the import of synthetic shoe components—uppers by PIL and soles, insoles and sock liners by PIND—to evade customs duty and obtain a concessional rate under Notification No. 45/94-Cus…

The respondent imported a chemical known as 'Sancticizer 429' and challenged the customs duty levied on it. The Assistant Collector classified it as a polymeric plasticizer under heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, a view upheld by the Appellate Collector. The Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tr…

M/s Bisco Limited imported 595 cases of second‑hand steel‑mill machinery to be stored in a notified public bonded warehouse. Because heavy rain made the warehouse inaccessible, the appellant obtained permission from the Superintendent under Section 64(d) to unload 264 cases outside the warehouse but within its factory …

Northern Plastics Ltd. imported X‑ray and graphic art films and claimed a concessional customs duty under a government notification, which was denied by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The Additional Collector later allowed clearance on full duty, prompting Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. (HPF), a business rival, and th…

Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. imported machinery under a specific contract registered with customs under tariff heading 84.66 and had already received concessions on basic and additional customs duties under Notification 268/76. The company later claimed a total exemption from auxiliary duty under Notification 6…

The appellant imported seven hard disk drives pre‑loaded with computer software. Customs classified the consignment under heading 84.71 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, attracting a 25% duty, whereas the appellant contended that the goods should fall under heading 85.24, attracting only 10% duty as computer software. T…

Essar Gujarat Ltd. purchased a Direct Reduction Iron Plant from Teviot Investments Ltd. and, as a pre‑condition, obtained a process licence and technical know‑how from Midrex and Yoest Alpine (V.A.). The Collector of Customs added the licence fee (DM 2,000,000) and a portion of the engineering and consultancy fees to t…

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 Revenue argued that thi…

Thermax Private Ltd imported chillers and paid customs duty and counter‑valing duty (CVD) but later claimed exemption from the CVD under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, relying on notifications issued under Section 8 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Collector of Customs allowed one of Thermax'…

The Supreme Court examined whether the GST Council’s recommendations are binding on Parliament and the States, and whether the import of goods on a CIF basis creates an inter‑state supply that makes the Indian importer the deemed recipient of shipping services. It held that the Council’s recommendations are merely pers…

Aidek Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd., a tourism operator that runs taxis, imported Honda Accord saloon cars and claimed a 10% refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Notification No. 64/93‑CE, which provides an additional exemption for saloon cars used solely as taxis. The Revenue argued that the exemption was available …

Sterlite Industries imported a Fully Automated Sequential X‑ray Spectrometer and claimed classification under sub‑heading 9027.30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, seeking a lower duty rate and a partial exemption under Notification 46/96. The Customs Department classified the equipment under sub‑heading 9022.19, imposi…

Auto Tractors Ltd imported three consignments of tractor components and cleared them with a DGTD certificate that referenced Notification No. 179/80, thereby receiving a smaller customs duty concession. The company later discovered it was eligible for a larger concession under Notification No. 200/79, obtained amended …

The appellants, importers of PVC resins and aluminium products, relied on government notifications under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 that exempted their goods from customs duty up to a specified date. The Central Government later issued withdrawal notifications before the expiry dates, citing changing market…

The Supreme Court examined whether Notification No. 281/Cus/76, which grants a partial exemption from customs duty, applies to rod bushes and camshaft bushes imported by Jain Engineering Co. The Court held that the notification does extend to parts of internal combustion piston engines listed under Heading 84.06, and t…

M/s M.P. Agencies, a distributor of the fabric whitener "Ujala Supreme" and the fabric stiffener "Ujala Stiff and Shine", appealed against the State of Kerala challenging the classification and tax rate under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The products are manufactured by Jyothy Laboratories by diluting acid vio…

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd, a manufacturer of mosquito repellents, was assessed by the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) authorities for the 2005-06 year at a 12.5% rate based on SRO No. 82/2006, which listed mosquito repellents as taxable at that rate. The company challenged the notification, arguing it was ultra vires of Se…

The State of Punjab challenged the tax treatment of battery chargers sold by Nokia India with cell phones, arguing that they should attract the concessional VAT rate of 4% under entry 60(6)(g) of Schedule B of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the VAT Tribunal held t…

Aggarwal Industries Ltd. imported 500 metric tons of crude sunflower seed oil under a contract dated 26 June 2001 at US$435 per metric ton, but shipment was delayed until 5 August 2001. The Customs authority rejected the contract price as the transaction value, arguing that the international market price had risen shar…

The respondents, media companies, imported pre‑recorded audio cassettes and compact discs and paid royalties to foreign artists. The Customs Department assessed duty on a higher value, arguing that the royalty must be added to the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rule 9(1)(c) of the 2007 Custom…

The Municipal Corporation of Thane sought to levy octroi duty on PVC resin in powder form and synthetic hydrocarbon resin manufactured by Asmaco Plastic Industries. The respondents argued that these products should be classified under Entry 40(b) "chemicals of all sorts" of the Maharashtra Municipality (Octroi Duty) Ru…

The private importers of edible oils challenged the differential customs duty rates granted to the State Trading Corporation (STC) under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging a violation of Article 14. The government had canalised edible‑oil imports through STC and, citing high international prices and the n…

Mis. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit manufacturing polyester yarn, sold its products against foreign exchange in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under permission granted by para 9.10(b) of the Export‑Import Policy (1997‑2002). The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice demanding differential duty, arg…

The appellants, Hewlett‑Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., imported all‑in‑one integrated desktop computers and self‑assessed them under tariff item 8471 50 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During customs examination the goods were re‑classified as tariff item 8471 30 10, a category for "portable" automatic data …

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 the credit taken und…

Tata Iron and Steel Co. imported equipment and associated engineering documents under three contracts (MD 301 for documents, MD 302 for equipment, and an umbrella contract). The customs authority issued show‑cause notices alleging that the value of the engineering documents should be included in the customs value of th…

The revenue appealed against JOCIL Ltd. challenging the classification of imported crude palm stearin. The importer had declared the product under Chapter 15 sub‑heading 15.11.90.90 as non‑edible industrial grade crude palm stearin, while the customs authorities re‑classified it as RBD palm stearin under Chapter 38 sub…

The Collector of Customs appealed against the classification of de‑oiled rice bran extraction, niger seed extraction of tapioca chips and sesame seed extractions as "animal feed" under Tariff Heading No. 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which would attract export duty. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellat…

The importer, N.I. Systems, brought various computer‑based instrumentation items—PXI controllers, I/O modules, signal converters and chassis—into India and classified them under Chapter 84 (8471) as automatic data processing machines. The Customs authorities classified them under Chapter 90 as parts and accessories of …

M/S IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. entered into a joint venture to import a hot‑mix plant for road construction and claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 217 dated 1‑3‑2001. The plant was split between a German supplier (critical items) and an Indian supplier (containers, frames, etc.), and t…

Mis Presto Industries, an industrial unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone, claimed exemption from excise duty on waste scrap under Notification No.16/83‑CE after paying only basic customs duty on the scrap cleared for home consumption. The Revenue discovered that the additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tari…

Mis Ballar Pur Industries Ltd imported a granite press roll, a component used to finish paper, and the Collector (Appeals) classified it under tariff heading 84.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, attracting a 40% duty. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) re‑classified the roll under headi…

United Offset imported a Colour Scanner Chromagraph C‑299 and initially cleared it under tariff heading 84.35 as "other printing machinery". The Assistant Collector later re‑assessed the goods under heading 90.25(i) and subsequently issued a demand for additional duty, claiming the scanner fell under heading 90.10. The…

The case concerned two ocean‑going vessels imported in 1968 under a customs exemption for ships not imported for breaking up. When the vessels were later scrapped in 1983‑84, the ship owners argued that duty should be calculated on the 1968 import value, while the Union of India contended that the exemption notificatio…

M/s Pankaj Jain Agencies, an importer of ball bearing components, challenged Notification No. 142/86-Cus., issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which reduced an earlier exemption and raised customs duty on its imports. The petitioners argued that the notification was not in force at the time of import, …

Essar Steel Ltd. entered into a technical services agreement with Met Chem Canada Inc. to obtain consultancy for setting up a steel plant in India, and subsequently placed a purchase order for the plant and machinery. The Customs authority added the fee for the technical services (DM 78.95 million) to the customs value…

Hind Plastics imported PVC and paid customs duty and additional duty. It filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court seeking a refund of duty on the packaging, claiming exemption under Notification No. 184‑CUS dated 2 August 1976 issued under section 25 of the Customs Act. The company argued that the invoice value in…

The Union of India appealed a Bombay High Court order that had allowed a writ petition filed by Victory Plastic Pvt. Ltd. The dispute concerned customs duty on PVC resin imported under tariff Item No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. An initial 1979 notification granted full exemption from duty, but a subseque…

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 activity and the materi…

The Customs, Bangalore appealed against the CESTAT order that had allowed an additional duty of 7% on notebook (laptop) computers imported by M/s. Acer India Ltd. The central issue was whether a laptop qualifies as a "CPU with monitor, mouse and keyboard imported together as a set" under S.No.2 of Rule 2 of the Compute…

Carestream Health India imported laser imagers classified them under Customs Tariff Heading 9018 90 19, claiming they were diagnostic apparatus. The Customs authorities re‑classified the goods under residuary heading 9033 00 00, treating them as accessories usable with various medical machines. The appellant argued the…

The appellant, a customs preventive authority, challenged the exemption granted to M/s Malwa Industries Ltd under Notification No. 4/2006‑CE dated 1 March 2006, which provided a nil rate of additional duty on certain imported goods used in the same factory. The issue was whether the phrase “same factory” required the g…

The petitioners, Pratibha Processors and others, imported polyester filament yarn under an Open General Licence, warehoused the goods and later obtained an Advance Licence under the Duty‑Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) scheme, clearing the goods with nil duty. The Customs authorities, however, assessed the Bil…

The respondent, an exporter of coir yarn, initially obtained an "entry outwards" for vessel N and paid export duty at the 10% rate. Because the vessel lacked space, the goods were not exported and were later re‑shipped on vessel P after amending the shipping bills on 9 August 1966, by which time the export duty rate ha…

Reliance Industries Ltd., a PTA manufacturer with a captive power plant, challenged the Designated Authority’s (DA) anti‑dumping duty order which imposed duty only on imports from Spain. The appellant argued that the DA wrongly computed the Non‑Injurious Price (NIP) by using the actual cost of captive electricity rathe…

The manufacturers purchased raw material and used it to make an intermediate product, which was then used to produce a final excisable product. The issue was whether the excise duty paid on the raw material, which could be claimed as credit under the MODVAT scheme, should be deducted from the raw material’s price when …

M/s D.L. Steels imported two consignments of dried pomegranate seeds (anardana) from Pakistan and classified them under heading 1209.99.90 of the Customs Tariff, attracting 5% duty. The Customs authorities re‑classified the goods under heading 0813.40.90, imposing a 30% duty, leading to differential duty, penalty and i…

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 imported four cases of hydrochloric acid synthesis unit combustion chambers, claiming classification under Heading 84.17(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as machinery and plant. The Assistant Collector classified them under Heading 68.01/16(1) (articles of stone, plaster, etc.), but the Collector (Appe…

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 …

The petitioners, Subhash Photographies, imported photographic machinery and claimed a concessional customs duty by classifying the equipment as "industrial plant" under Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Customs authorities treated the machinery as falling under Chapter 90, levying a higher duty. The Ce…

The appellants, offshore drilling companies, operated oil rigs in India's designated offshore areas (continental shelf and exclusive economic zone) and sought to import stores for the rigs without customs duty, relying on the exemption for foreign‑going vessels under the Customs Act. The Revenue authorities, citing not…

The appellant, Dai-ichi Karkaria Ltd., imported raw materials for manufacturing goods supplied to ONGC under a customs duty exemption granted by Notification No. 210/82 (amended 1983) which was to remain in force until 10 September 1987. The Union of India later issued Notification No. 513/86, reducing the exemption to…

Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd imported two generator sets, one of which was received on 24 Oct 1998 but not installed until after 1 Apr 2000. At the time of receipt Rule 57Q(3) of the Central Excise Rules applied, allowing up to 75% credit, but the Rules were amended on 1 Apr 2000 by Rule 57AC which limits CENVAT credit on …

The Commissioner of Customs appealed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which had accepted M/s JD Orgochem Ltd.'s declared transaction value of US$13.2 per kg for imported dinitro crysazine, despite an earlier import at US$18.7 per kg. The assessing authority had rejected the d…

Mis. SIV Industries Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit, sought to withdraw (debond) from the EOU scheme and paid all customs and excise duties as required. The dispute centered on whether excise duty on the finished goods in stock at the time of debonding should be levied under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise and Sal…

Mewar PolytEx Ltd exported PP fabrics under the Advance Licensing Scheme and, in its AR‑4 declarations, stated that it would not claim Modvat credit. Later the company claimed Modvat credit on the indigenous inputs used for the export and also drew back counter‑vailing duty on imported inputs, thereby seeking a double …

The Customs department seized a large quantity of rough diamonds from M/s. M. Ambalal & Co. after the firm failed to produce a valid import licence. The firm was directed to pay duty, a redemption fine and penalty, but appealed claiming exemption under Notification No.247-Cus dated 02‑08‑1976, which exempts certain art…

The appellants, Milak Brothers, exported blanched, roasted and salted peanuts packed in vacuum containers, claiming that the processed product was a "processed food" and not a "groundnut kernel" for which export duty was levied under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Revenue argued that …

The importer South India Television Ltd. imported ceramic capacitors and diodes from Hong Kong and declared low invoice prices. The Customs Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging under‑invoicing and invoked Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules to enhance the assessable value based on export declarations from t…

The case concerned the levy of anti‑dumping duty on imports of Acrylonitrile‑Butadiene‑Rubber (NBR) from Korea. The original notification imposing the duty was extended by a five‑year notification dated 02‑01‑2009, which expired on 01‑01‑2014. A third sunset‑review was initiated on 31‑12‑2013, and the Government issued…

Canon India imported digital still image video cameras which were cleared as exempt from customs duty by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 24 March 2012 under Notification No.15/2012. On 19 August 2014 the Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued a show‑cause notice under …

M/s NRC Limited imported caprolactam and was assessed additional customs duty on the CIF value as well as on basic, auxiliary duties and landing charges. While the dispute was pending, the Government introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) under the Finance Act, 1998, allowing declarants to settle tax arrears b…

Sneh Enterprises imported lead‑acid batteries from Taiwan, which landed in Mumbai on 16‑April‑2002 and were trans‑shipped to Delhi where the Bill of Entry was filed on 22‑May‑2002. On the same day the Central Government issued a notification under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 imposing an anti‑dumping duty…

Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd. purchased a ship that had been imported by another Indian company for ship‑breaking. The ship was damaged after arrival in India and was sold to the appellant on an "as is where is" basis for a reduced price of Rs 12.01 crore, whereas the original import price was Rs 24.78 crore. The appellan…

The Collector of Customs appealed against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) which had allowed two importers, Mis. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Mis. Maestro Motors Ltd., to claim exemption under customs notifications. The Court examined whether goods imported in completely knocked …

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Rule 7 of the Customs Tariffs (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti‑Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, to determine whether the Designated Authority (DA) could claim confidentiality for its own reasons or findings. …

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 therefore not covered by…

M/s Western India Plywoods Ltd. imported a set of pulp‑making machinery that included a motor vibrator with actuator. The Customs department classified the motor vibrator under the residuary heading 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, while the importer argued it should fall under heading 8439.91 as a part of pulp…

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 only to manufacturers…

The appellant, Mis Sun Export Corporation, imported six consignments of vitamin AD‑3 premix (feed grade) and claimed refund of customs and counter‑vailing duties on the ground that the product was an ‘animal feed’ covered by Notification No. 234/82‑CE, which exempts such goods. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Ap…

The Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (ATMA) and its members imported Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric and sought relief from an anti‑dumping duty imposed on imports from China under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Designated Authority (DA) investigated, issued provisional duty, and later, after a change of officer, re…

Mis Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. imported bleachable mutton tallow in April 1978 and claimed a 30% customs duty exemption under Notification 141‑CUS/76, which required the tallow to meet a colour specification. The Customs House tested the tallow using the Indian Standards method (IS 548) and found the colour exceed…

The petitioners, a consortium of newspaper publishers, challenged the imposition of customs and auxiliary duties on imported newsprint under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, arguing that the levy infringed their freedom of speech and expression (Art. 19(1)(a)) and the right to practice a professi…

Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd (the appellant) challenged the Special Judge's order taking cognizance of alleged offences relating to the payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on invoice value instead of Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The company claimed that it had been granted immunity from prosecution u…

Gammon India Ltd. and Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd. formed a joint venture (Gammon‑Atlanta JV) to bid for a National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) road contract, which was awarded to the JV. Gammon imported a concrete batching plant and claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 17/2001 (Condition 38…

Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. (UFAC), a 100% Export Oriented Unit, entered into an agreement with Tata Iron & Steel Co. (TISCO) to convert raw manganese ore supplied free of cost into silicon manganese for a fee. The Revenue argued that such job‑work was not permitted under the EXIM Policy and that, under the…

The Cochin Port Trust sought to recover ground rent and demurrage for containers that remained unclaimed by consignees after customs clearance, arguing that the steamer agents should not be liable beyond the 75‑day limit set by the Tariff Authority. The Supreme Court examined whether the passage of title, endorsement o…

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…

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 applied only to waste gen…

M/s. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd., a ship‑repair unit, was found to have imported engineering cargo as "ship spares" and then sold the goods to a third party, thereby fraudulently claiming exemption under Notification No.211/83. The Customs Commissioner demanded duty, penalty and interest; the appellant withdrew it…

Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. imported a consignment of LDPE/HDPE granules from the United States and declared a low invoice price. The Customs Authority rejected the transaction value as unrealistically low, enhanced the valuation using prices from foreign journals as directed by Standing Order No. 7493/99, confiscated th…

Adani Power Ltd., operating a coal‑based power plant in the Mundra SEZ, challenged the levy of customs duty on electricity exported from its SEZ unit to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under several notifications issued between 2010 and 2016. The Gujarat High Court, in a 2015 judgment, held that no lawful charging event…

The importer M/s Seiko Brushware India brought pig‑hair bristles into India and sold them in 1998‑2000. The Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, Section 7 lists pig‑hair bristles as tax‑free goods, meaning no sales tax is payable on their sale. The Commissioner of Customs denied the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 34/98‑Cu…

M/s. Jaswal Neco Ltd., a pig‑iron manufacturer, imported low‑ash metallurgical coke between June and August 1998 under export‑obligation exemptions. It failed to fulfill the export condition and was assessed a demand of Rs 7.21 crore comprising basic customs duty, special customs duty, special additional duty, and anti…

The appellant, Indian Textile Paper Tube Co. Ltd., imported goods that were initially classified under a higher duty heading and later obtained a refund order after the Appellate Collector re‑classified them under a lower duty heading. The Central Government, exercising suo motu power under Section 131(3) of the Custom…

Grasim Industries imported 14,700 Karbate Tubes, artificial graphite components of heat exchangers, and sought classification under Chapter 84 (sub‑heading 8419.50) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Revenue argued that Note I(a) of Chapter 84 expressly excludes such items as "other articles of Chapter 68" and theref…

MIS Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd, a manufacturer of knitted garments, purchased excise‑duty‑paid yarn but did not claim MODVAT credit and produced fabrics wholly consumed in garment production. Under the 2002 Union Budget, Notification Nos. 14/2002‑CE and 15/2002‑CE offered two schemes: a concessional duty rate for tho…

The Union of India challenged the validity of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and the accompanying Compensation Cess Rules, arguing that Parliament lacked legislative competence to levy a compensation cess and that the levy amounted to double taxation on the same taxable event. Mohit Miner…

J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., a cement manufacturer, operated its own limestone mine and used explosives for blasting in the mine. It claimed CENVAT credit for the explosives under Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue argued that the explosives were not "inputs" because they were not used within the fact…

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories imported diagnostic equipment (BTS models) and classified them as "auto analysers" under the Customs Tariff. Customs seized the goods, alleging they were merely "photometers" and demanded duty, confiscation, and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act. The Commission…

Mis Oblum Electrical Industries, a manufacturer of lightning arrestors, imported Crystar beams as kiln furniture and claimed duty‑free clearance under Customs Notification No. 210/82 and No. 116/88. The Additional Collector of Customs and the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the beams were …

Raja Radio Co imported Class‑E high‑temperature resisting material consisting of presspahn paper laminated with polyester film and paid customs duty under heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, together with counter‑vailing duty under tariff item 17(2). The company later claimed a refund, arguing that the go…

The Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of a drilling rig owned by Mis Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. on the ground that the rig had been brought into Indian territorial waters for repairs without filing a bill of entry, was not declared under Section 46 and was therefore imported for home consumption. The…

Mis. Modi Rubber Ltd. imported styrene‑butadiene latex and claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 82/86 (as amended) which exempts raw rubber and latex. Clause IA of the notification excludes "styrene butadiene rubber and oil‑extended styrene butadiene rubber". The Customs authority denied the exemp…

M/s L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) producing cut flowers, imported inputs duty‑free under Notification No. 126/94-Cus but sold a portion of its produce in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) without the required approval of the Development Commissioner and without meeting the net foreign‑ex…

Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd. sought anti‑dumping duty on imports of normal butanol and related chemicals from Saudi Arabia and other countries, alleging dumping and injury. The Designated Authority (DA) terminated the investigation, finding insufficient data and an inadequate period to establish injury, prompting several…

Coal India Ltd., through its subsidiary Central Coalfields Ltd., imported spare parts for P&H shovels and was required to pay an additional 8% of the FOB value to the Indian agent Voltas Ltd. as engineering and technical service fees. The customs authorities held that these fees were part of the assessable value under …

The appellant imported a cutter suction dredger together with accessories such as pipes, multicats, anchor boats, dredging pumping units and engines, classifying them under Chapter 8905 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and claimed nil duty under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS. The Assistant Commissioner held that many of …