Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise Act, 1944

14 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPURversusJINDAL DRUGS LTD.

2024 INSC 35430 April 2024Dismissed

Jindal Drugs Ltd. imported cocoa butter and cocoa powder and also received the same from its Jammu unit, then affixed two additional labels on each carton at its Taloja plant before exporting the goods. The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the company's claim of CENVAT credit and export rebate, arguing that th

M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - II

2025 INSC 57828 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. had classified its benzene and toluene products under chapter 29 (sub‑heading 2902.00) and obtained approval in 1990. The Excise Department later sampled the products, obtained test reports showing purity below 96%, and re‑classified them under chapter 27 (sub‑headings 2707.10 and 2707.20)

RADHIKA AGARWALversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 27227 February 2025

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Customs Act, 1962 and the arrest provisions in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arguing that offences under these statutes remain non‑cognizable and that authorized officers must obtain a magistrate's warrant, relying on the Om

M/S RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 90124 July 2025Dismissed

The appellants, M/s Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. and related companies, were investigated for alleged illegal manufacture and removal of excisable goods, leading to departmental adjudication orders imposing large duties and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Departmental order dated 31‑03‑2011 was set aside by the

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

2024 INSC 88020 November 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether mobile service providers (MSPs) could claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid for mobile towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) used in their networks. The dispute arose from conflicting decisions of the Bombay High Court, which held the towers and PFBs to be immovable property a

M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II

2025 INSC 113019 September 2025Dismissed

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

NABHA POWER LIMITEDversusPUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 100219 August 2025Dismissed

Nabha Power Ltd (NPL) and Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd (TSPL) entered into Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL) for a 700 MW coal‑fired project. They claimed that deemed export benefits under Paragraph 8.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009‑2014 were available at the bid cut‑of

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 89318 December 2024Dismissed

The case concerned whether pure coconut oil sold in small retail packs (5 ml‑2 L) should be classified as ‘edible oil’ under Heading 1513 of Chapter 15 or as ‘hair oil’ under Heading 3305 of Chapter 33 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents marketed the oil as edible oil, while th

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, JAIPUR -IIversusM/S MIRAJ PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.

2024 INSC 4708 July 2024Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices alleging that Miraj Products packaged chewing tobacco in poly packs that were group packages intended for retail sale, thereby attracting Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Miraj contended that the poly packs were placed inside HDPE bags, which were

BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTDversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2024 INSC 6626 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. B.T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD

2024 INSC 835 February 2024Dismissed

The respondent, a class‑I civil contractor, completed work on the Koyna Hydro Electric Project funded by the World Bank and claimed duty drawback as a "deemed export" under the Exim Policy 1992‑1997. After multiple rejections by the DGFT, a Policy Interpretation Committee in 2002 allowed the drawback, which was paid in

THE STATE OF GOA & ANR.versusNAMITA TRIPATHI

2025 INSC 3062 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa filed a complaint alleging that the respondent's professional laundry service operated as a factory without a valid licence, violating the Factories Act, 1948. A Judicial Magistrate First Class issued summons on the basis of the complaint, but the High Court quashed the process, holding that dry‑cleani

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