Central Excise Act, 1944

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore appealed against the CEGAT order that held no excise duty was payable on the erection of boiler, membrane‑cell and solvent‑extraction plants assembled on site by Mis Cethar Vessels Ltd. The core issue was whether such assembly created immovable property or a new marketable com…

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 …

MIS STESALIT LIMITED, a manufacturer of railway parts, used copper coils for captive consumption in upgrading smoothing reactors without paying excise duty or filing the required declaration under Rule 173‑C. The adjudicating authority demanded unpaid duty and imposed a penalty of Rs 2,06,000 under Section 11‑AC read w…

Miss Singh Enterprises appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the Jharkhand High Court which had dismissed its writ petition challenging the dismissal of its appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appeal had been filed 21 months after the service of the original order, far beyond the 60‑day …

The Central Excise Department conducted a search at the premises of M/s Krishna Wax (P) Ltd., alleging unauthorised manufacture of foots oil and wax without payment of excise duty. The respondent, not registered under the Act, challenged the Department's jurisdiction and the issuance of a show‑cause notice, leading the…

Balaji Steel Re‑rolling Mills, a partnership engaged in manufacturing hot re‑rolled products, challenged an order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs that fixed its production capacity and duty liability. The matter was remanded by the Appellate Tribunal, but on a later appeal the Tribunal dismissed the a…

The appellant, Kesari Nandan Mobile, challenged two provisional attachment orders dated 13 November 2024 and 18 December 2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The orders were issued after earlier attachment orders of October 2023 had au…

Mis Elgi Equipments Ltd., a manufacturer of service‑station equipment, claimed a uniform 20% trade discount on its sales to distributors, while giving an 8% discount to sub‑dealers and a 12% commission to the distributors. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging a differential discount and dem…

M/s Stemcyte India Therapeutics, a joint‑venture stem‑cell bank, was assessed service tax for its enrolment, collection, processing and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells for the period 1 July 2012 to 16 February 2014. The appellant claimed exemption as a "Healthcare Service" under Notification No.25/2012‑ST an…

Rollatainers Ltd., a manufacturer of printed cartons, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 55/75, which exempts "all products of the Printing Industry". The Superintendent of Central Excise held that printed cartons are products of the Packaging Industry and not eligible for exemption. The …

The case concerned the classification of Ketoconazole (Nizral) Shampoo for central excise purposes. The assessee argued that the product, containing 2% ketoconazole and marketed for the treatment of dandruff, should be classified under CHS 3003.10 as a pharmaceutical product, attracting 16% duty, whereas the revenue co…

The appellant, Mis. Dhrampal Satyapal Ltd., claimed exemption from excise duty under a 1999 notification for North‑Eastern industrial units, which was later withdrawn retrospectively by Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003. The Department issued recovery orders without a prior show‑cause notice, which the appellant arg…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the assessee M/s Kraftech Products Inc.'s claim of exemption from excise duty on hair‑dye packed in three 3‑gram sachets per packet (total 9 g). The assessee argued that, under Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977,…

Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. manufactured biscuits and sold them under the brand name “Meghraj” from 1991. The brand name was a registered trademark of Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd., which also used it for biscuits. The Central Excise Department held that the appellant was not eligible for the Small Scale Industry (SSI…

The appeals concerned whether a High Court could condone a delay in filing a reference application under Section 35‑H of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The reference applications were filed after the statutory period of 180 days. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 35‑G, 35‑E(3) and the lack of any condonation…

M/s North West Switchgear Ltd and M/s Kesharbai Electronics manufactured fan regulators and classified them under sub‑heading 8414.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, claiming they are electric fans. The revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging short payment of duty, arguing that the regulators are accessories…

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd., alleging that the company had not added the advance payments received from Coca‑Cola India and PepsiCo India to the assessable value of its glass bottles, thereby depressing the value and evading duty. The adjud…

The assessee, Australian Foods India Ltd., manufactured cookies under the brand "Cookie Man" and sold them in branded plastic pouches as well as loosely from the counter of its exclusive retail outlet without any brand imprint on the cookies. Excise duty was paid on the packaged cookies but not on the loosely sold ones…

The Supreme Court examined whether "physician samples" of patented and proprietary medicines, which are distributed free of cost to doctors and prohibited from sale under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are liable to central excise duty. It held that excise duty is a tax on manufacture, not on sale, and therefore the stat…

M/s Thermax Ltd. (appellant) manufactures Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) and described them as heat pumps to obtain a concessional excise rate under Notification 155/86‑CE. The Revenue argued that the MVAC’s primary output is chilled water, not heat, and therefore it does not meet the HSN definition of a he…

Grasim Industries, a manufacturer of white cement, repaired its plant machinery between 1995 and 1999, generating metal scrap and iron waste. The revenue authorities demanded excise duty and penalties on the scrap, treating it as an excisable good under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that the scrap did not a…

Allied Air‑Conditioning Corp manufactured package‑type air conditioners that were cleared in a knocked‑down condition and assembled on site. The Commissioner of Central Excise alleged duty evasion and invoked the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, assessing…

The appellant, HMT Ltd., a manufacturer of dairy machinery, classified its machines such as pasteurizers, chillers, pumps, separators and butter packing machines under Chapter 84.34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The revenue authorities issued show‑cause notices alleging mis‑classification and proposed re‑clas…

Kali Aerated Water Works, a small‑scale unit manufacturing aerated water under the brand "Kalimark", applied for exemption from excise duty under Notification 1/93‑CE (as amended). The Central Excise Department denied the exemption, contending that the brand name belonged to a third party, K.P.R. Shakthivel, and that t…

The case concerned the classification of 100% pure coconut oil packed in small retail containers. The Revenue argued that such packaging made the oil a "hair oil" falling under Chapter 33, Heading 3305, while the assessee contended it remained "coconut oil" under Chapter 15, Heading 1513. The Court examined the pre‑ an…

The petitioners, manufacturers of vegetable oil, challenged the levy and collection of the vegetable oils cess for the period 1 March 1986 to 31 March 1987, contending that the Finance Minister’s 1986 budget speech and a subsequent Directorate of Vanaspati letter had dispensed with the cess and that exemption powers un…

Grasim Industries bought Electro‑Static Precipitators (ESPs) from BHEL for captive use in pollution control and paid the normal 15% excise duty instead of the concessional 5% rate. It claimed a refund of the excess duty (Rs 27,66,970) alleging that the duty was not passed on. The Revenue rejected the claim on the groun…

M/S RDB Textiles Ltd. manufactured jute bags for the Food Corporation of India, state governments and other agencies for use in the Public Distribution System. The Central Excise authorities denied exemption under Notification 30/2004, claiming that the bags bore a "brand name" because they displayed the buyer's name, …

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order that quashed a differential excise duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s Food & Healthcare Specialities (the assessee) and its partner Mis Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. (Heinz). The assessee blended and packed "G…

Unison Electronics Pvt. Ltd. manufactured ice‑cream makers under its own brand "CREMICA" and sold them to United Tele Shopping (UTS) and Tele Shopping Network (TSN). The customers' supervisors affixed stickers bearing the abbreviations "UTS" and "TSN" on the goods before dispatch. The Central Excise Department treated …

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 assessees, M/s Osnar Chemical, supplied polymer‑modified bitumen (PMB) and crumbled‑rubber‑modified bitumen (CRMB) by heating petroleum bitumen, adding a small proportion of polymer and additives, and agitating the mixture to improve its quality. The revenue argued that this process created a new marketable commodi…

The Supreme Court examined two sets of appeals by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. seeking exemption from excise duty on Reduced Crude Oil (RCO) and Naphtha under separate exemption notifications. The Court held that the proviso in each notification required satisfaction of two conditions: proof of the intended use and comp…

The appellant, a manufacturer of electronic equipment, fabricated testing machines worth Rs 31.27 lacs to test its own products and claimed they were for captive consumption and R&D, not liable to excise duty. The department issued a show‑cause notice and, after the appellant’s admissions in its balance sheet and reply…

Mis Supreme Fabrics Ltd claimed that loading charges incurred while clearing goods from its factory gate should be treated as cum‑duty price, allowing an abatement of excise duty payable on those charges. The Assessing Officer held the charges were includible in assessable value and denied the deduction. The Commission…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the CEGAT order that refrigeration, cold storage, central air‑conditioning and caustic soda plants assembled at site are not excisable goods. The appellants contended that assembling duty‑paid components into a new marketable plant creates a new commodity liable to ex…

Aurangabad Electricals Ltd., a manufacturer of magneto assemblies, was issued a show‑cause notice alleging that it had undervalued inputs purchased from Bajaj Auto, thereby evading central excise duty. The adjudicating commissioner levied differential duty of Rs.84.27 lakh and a penalty of Rs.69.72 lakh, which the Appe…

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. alleging that it supplied aluminum ingots to M/s. Anurang Engineering at an under‑valued landed cost, thereby evading excise duty on the finished castings. The adjudicating authority held Bajaj liable for duty, penalty and interest, b…

Pleasantime Products manufactured the branded word game "Scrabble" and claimed it fell under sub‑heading 9503.00 (puzzles) of Chapter 95 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985, seeking exemption from excise duty. The Central Excise Department classified it as a board game under heading 95.04, levied duty and invoke…

MIS. India Cine Agencies appealed against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, contending that the conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic film into smaller rolls constituted manufacture/production under Sections 32AB, 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore qualified for a permissible deduction. T…

The assessee, Mis. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd., operated a distillery that produced ethyl alcohol denatured (SDS) and a chemical factory that consumed the SDS for manufacturing specified chemicals. The assessee valued the transferred SDS on a costing basis under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 19…

M/s Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. manufactures a perfumery (odoriferous) compound used in the production of agarbathi. The Central Board of Excise and Customs issued Circular No.495/61/99-CX.3 (1999) stating that such odoriferous compounds, when used as an intermediate in a continuous manufacturing process and not …

Paras Ship Breakers Ltd installed an 8‑metric‑tonne induction furnace but, due to insufficient power supply from the Gujarat State Electricity Board, claimed it had reduced the furnace capacity to 4.5 MT and sought a lower deemed annual production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The department measured the …

Paper Products Ltd., a manufacturer of printed flexible packaging, was found by the Central Excise authorities to have omitted the cost of its printing cylinders from the assessable value of its laminates and pouches, leading to a demand for additional duty and a penalty. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudic…

The Supreme Court examined two appeals where the Central Excise Tribunal had set aside penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act because the assessee had paid the short‑paid duty before a show‑cause notice was issued. The Court held that Section 11AC imposes a penalty only when the escaped duty res…

Bata India Ltd., a footwear manufacturer, produced an unvulcanised sandwiched fabric assembly that it used internally as an intermediate material for making shoe uppers. The Commissioner of Central Excise treated this intermediate product as excisable "goods" under s.2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demanded du…

Matsushita Television & Audio (I) Ltd. entered into a technical know‑how agreement with Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. (MEI) under which it paid a royalty of 3% on the net ex‑factory sale price of colour TV sets. The net price included the cost of imported components used in the TVs. The Customs authorities, r…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against a judgment of the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) which had allowed Mis. Grasim Industries Ltd., a subsidiary, to claim exemption under Notification No. 5/98‑CE. The subsidiary printed on its cement bags the words "Manufactured by…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd purchased spare parts such as bumpers and grills, availed MODVAT credit, and subjected them to electro‑deposition (ED) coating before removing them from the factory for home consumption. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the value addition due to ED coating a…

Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of plywood and related products, claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86 for inputs (glue, UF resin, wood veneer) while its final products were already exempt under Notification No. 175/86 up to an aggregate value of Rs 20 lakh. The Revenue argued that th…

Escorts Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., manufacturers of tractors, sold 60% of their tractors to stockists at a 27.5% discount and 40% to sub‑stockists at a 25% discount. They passed the 2.5% differential discount on to the stockists and claimed it as a deductible trade discount when valuing the goods sold to sub‑stockis…

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 Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, appealed against K.W.H. Heloplastics Ltd. for non‑payment of excise duty on plastic tanks and vats. The department classified the goods under Heading 39.25, Sub‑heading 3925.10 as "builders' ware" liable to duty, while the assessee claimed exemption under Sub‑heading 3926.90 as …

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the assessee Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Ltd.’s claim of Cenvat credit on duty‑paid Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) used as fuel to generate steam and electricity for producing fertilizer, a product exempt from excise duty. The Tribunal’s larger bench had …

Mis. Mercantile Company received raw chemicals from Mis. T. Paul & Sons, supplied by Mis. Philips India Ltd., and carried out filtering, repacking into 50 ml containers, labeling and marketing them as distinct cleaning products. The Central Excise authorities classified these goods under sub‑heading 3402.90 of the Cent…

Gaekwar Mills Ltd manufactured a fabric consisting of 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton. The Collector of Central Excise argued that the fabric should be classified as a cotton fabric under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, while the CEGAT held that it fell under Item 22 for man‑made fabrics. The S…

The assessee, S. Gurukripa Resins Pvt. Ltd., manufactured turpentine oil and rosin by distilling crude turpentine and used electric motors to lift water for cooling the condensers. It claimed exemption from excise duty on the ground that the manufacturing process was carried out without the aid of power. The revenue au…

The Supreme Court answered three questions referred by a larger bench concerning the relationship between Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the definition of "transaction value". It held that Section 4’s levy measure, including the statutorily defined transaction value, is not subordinate to Section …

Mis Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. melted aluminium ingots and added alloys to produce aluminium billets, which were used captively for irrigation pipe manufacture (exempt) and also sold in the open market. The Commissioner of Central Excise demanded excise duty on the billets, holding that the conversion constituted "manufact…

Quinn India Ltd manufactured a product called Penetrator 4893, originally classified under tariff item 68 and later under 3801.19. In 1986 the company re‑classified it under heading 3402.90 as a wetting (surface‑active) agent, relying on reports from a Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist of the Central Revenue Cont…

Universal Glass Ltd., a manufacturer of glass bottles, supplied 50% of its output to its parent company Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (JIL) for captive consumption and sold the remainder to independent industrial buyers. The assessee valued the bottles sold to JIL by referencing prices charged to the independent buyers, fil…

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against Mis. Universal Electrical Industries, a small‑scale manufacturer of electric appliances, seeking to deny the exemption under Notification No. 175/1986. The issue was how to compute the aggregate value of clearances for the exemption, specifically whether the value of fin…

Pepsi Foods Ltd. manufactured snack products and sold 96% of them to its related person, M/s. Frito‑Lay India, claiming that the sale occurred at its factory gate and that freight charges to the related‑person’s depot should be excluded from the assessable value. The Revenue argued that under the pre‑2000 provision of …

I.T.C. Ltd., a cigarette manufacturer, was served with show‑cause notices for removing 20 sticks from each machine daily as samples for quality‑control testing, without paying excise duty. The company argued that excise duty should not apply because the cigarettes were not yet packed, a step it claimed was part of manu…

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’…

SRD Nutrients Private Ltd, a manufacturer in Assam, claimed refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess paid along with excise duty on goods that were exempted from excise duty under Notification 20/2007‑CE dated 25‑Apr‑2007. The lower authorities and CESTAT held that the notification only exempted excise duty, …

The respondent, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., manufactured a hair oil called "Alma Lio" and initially classified it as an Ayurvedic medicament under SH 3003.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the product should be classified as a cos…

Damnet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. manufactured two products, ‘CRC 2-26’ and ‘CRC Acryform’, and claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 120/84‑CE (blended lubricating oil) and Notification No. 175/86‑CE (SSI) respectively. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the pro…

ITC Ltd, a cigarette manufacturer, printed the maximum retail price (MRP) on its packs as required by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Packaged Commodities Rules. The Revenue alleged that the printed MRP was false, that ITC under‑priced its cigarettes to evade excise duty, and imposed penalties. The Ce…

Sodani Cement and Chemicals (P) Ltd., a small‑scale industry (SSI) manufacturing ordinary Portland cement, sought the benefit of Notification No. 23/1989‑CE which exempts cement produced in a vertical shaft kiln with a licensed capacity not exceeding 200 tonnes per day from the normal excise duty of Rs. 215 per tonne, …

Royal Enfield (unit of M/s Eicher Ltd.) manufactured motorcycles and dispatched them to dealers outside Chennai in a packed condition, charging Rs.190 per bike as packing charges and claiming an abatement in the assessable value for excise duty. The Central Excise authorities disallowed the inclusion of these packing c…

The appellants, 100% Export Oriented Undertakings (EOUs) manufacturing cotton yarn from indigenous raw material, were required to pay Basic Excise Duty (BED) under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Additional Excise Duty (AED) under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. Notification …

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 …

M/S. Saraf Exports, a partnership engaged in manufacturing and exporting wooden handicrafts, claimed deductions under s.80‑IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for amounts received under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) and Duty Drawback schemes for AY 2008‑09. The Deputy Commissioner disallowed the deductions, a decisi…

UTC Fire and Security India Ltd manufactures smoke detectors that are sold either in loose form or as part of turnkey fire‑fighting projects. The Central Excise authorities valued the detectors used captively in the turnkey contracts by applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 4 of the 1975 Val…

Hans Steel Rolling Mill, a manufacturer of steel products, opted for the compound levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and paid duty as per Rule 96ZP. The Commissioner initially fixed its annual capacity at 3355 MT, later revised to 1890 MT after the mill altered its parameters. The revenue department…

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to M/s Mehta & Co., alleging that the firm manufactured and removed wooden furniture from a hotel premises without paying excise duty, thereby evading tax. The respondent contested the demand, arguing that the items were immovable fixtures and that the deman…

The Commissioner of Service Tax issued show‑cause notices to Citibank alleging that the Rs 2 interchange fee it earned as an issuing bank on credit‑card transactions was taxable service income. Citibank contended that it performed no service, that the fee was interest, and that tax had already been paid by the acquirin…

The appellant, Bombay Dyeing, manufactured cotton and man‑made fabrics and claimed that excise duty was not payable on yarn processed in its composite mills, seeking interim relief by executing Form B‑13 bonds under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. The Delhi High Court, referencing Rohit Mills, disposed of the writ…

Mis Essel Propack Ltd. manufactured plastic tubes and fitted plastic caps supplied free of cost by its customer, Colgate, before the tubes left its factory. The Commissioner of Central Excise treated the value of the caps as part of the assessable value of the tubes and levied excise duty, penalty and interest, which t…

The appellant, Spentex Industries Ltd., manufactured polyester yarns, paid excise duty on both the raw materials and the finished products, and exported the goods. It claimed rebate of duty on both inputs and final goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, filing 45 rebate applications. The Revenue rejecte…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the CEGAT order that had set aside the adjudicating authority’s finding that Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. clandestinely removed excisable food products and passed them off as non‑excisable goods. The Supreme Court held that the Managing Director’s statements recorded…

The Revenue Department alleged that RDC Concrete (India) Ltd. undervalued its pavers and sold them to an inter‑connected company to evade excise duty. The CESTAT upheld the duty demand but later, upon a rectification application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, modified its earlier order, quashing …

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against a Tribunal order that had allowed IFGT Refractories Ltd. to treat a benefit obtained under the Duty Exemption Scheme as a statutory benefit, not as part of the price for excise duty. IFGT had sold refractories to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant; the buyer surrendered its ad…

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala appealed against the High Court’s order allowing Tara Agencies to claim a weighted deduction under Section 35B(IA) of the Income Tax Act for export‑related expenses. Tara Agencies purchased various grades of tea, blended them, and exported the blended product. The issue was whethe…

The Union of India challenged two show‑cause notices issued to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. for alleged short payment of excise duty for the years 1982‑85, contending that the Department had misapplied Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The High Court set aside the notices, holding that the post‑1996 amendment to Section…

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs appealed against a tribunal order that held M/s Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd.'s polished ceramic tiles were not "glazed" and therefore not liable for differential excise duty. The assessee manufactures both polished (glossy) and unpolished tiles, initially classified under tari…

M/s D.J. Malpani, a manufacturer of chewing tobacco, collected a voluntary charitable donation called Dharmada from customers along with the sale price of its goods. The tax authorities treated the Dharmada amount as part of the transaction value and demanded excise duty, penalty and interest. The appellant argued that…

M/s JSW Steel Ltd. manufactured pig iron and HR coil sheets and, in its invoices, added a charitable donation called ‘Dharmada’ which was credited to charity. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking penalty under Rule 25 of the Centra…

The Revenue challenged the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal’s finding that 22 products of Ishan Research Lab were Ayurvedic medicines under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, liable to 10% duty, rather than cosmetics under Chapter 33 at 40% duty. The Court examined whether the products should…

M/s. Paniha​ti Rubber Ltd., a manufacturer of hose pipes supplied to Indian Railways, paid central excise duty under protest after the goods were classified under sub‑heading 4009.92 despite its claim that they should fall under 4009.99 with nil duty. The company sought a refund of the duty paid, but the excise authori…

Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. operated a composite mill where yarn was spun and grey fabrics were woven but not further processed. Under Notification No. 14/2002‑CE, such grey fabrics are exempt from excise duty (nil rate) provided (i) duty on the yarn input is paid before claiming the exemption and (ii) no CENVAT …

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 …

The Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) cleared goods between January 2005 and July 2006 on a price fixed by a circular, later revised retrospectively by an escalation clause, leading SAIL to pay differential excise duty of Rs.142.78 crore. The Commissioner demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act…

Maan Aluminium Ltd., a manufacturer of aluminium profiles, was raided by excise officials who found unaccounted finished goods and issued a show‑cause notice alleging clandestine removal of those goods, demanding differential excise duty of Rs 64,82,565. The company contested, explaining that the weight differences aro…

M/s Chaudhara Steels (P) Ltd. appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, challenging the dismissal of its appeal under Section 35‑G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The sole issue was whether a High Court can condone delay in filing such an appeal. The Supreme Court examined earlier decisions—Commi…

The case involved the import of undenatured ethyl alcohol which the Customs Department alleged was undervalued and imported without a valid licence, leading to a demand for differential duty, penalties and confiscation. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the invoices showing a pri…

The case concerned whether the erection of an Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plant using duty‑paid components constitutes the manufacture of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the manufacturers of the plant’s parts were eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93‑CE. The Supreme…

Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd., a state‑owned manufacturer of electrical relays, sought to have its relays classified under Chapter 86 heading 8608 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, arguing that they are used solely as parts of railway signalling equipment. The Revenue argued that the relays fell under Chapter 85…

M/s Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. purchased raw field latex in Kerala, processed it into centrifuged latex in Tamil Nadu and sold the product. For assessment years 1997‑98 and 1998‑99 the assessee relied on Circular No. 16/98 issued by the Kerala Board of Revenue under s.3(1A)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, w…

The Commissioner of Central Excise sought interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on differential duty that International Auto Ltd. paid after the date of clearance of goods because the selling price was later revised upward. The assessee contended that the purchase order prices were final, there wa…

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (appellant) sold steel products to Indian Railways under a contract containing a price‑escalation clause. The goods were cleared and excise duty paid on the original price; later the price was revised upward and the appellant paid a differential duty of Rs.142.78 crore. The Revenue cla…

Maharshi Ayurveda Corporation Ltd manufactured a tonic called “Herbonic”, a mixture of vegetables, nuts, seeds and other plant parts, and claimed nil excise duty under heading 2001.90 of Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue argued that the product should be classified under the residuary headi…

Fitrite Packers purchased duty‑paid GI paper and printed logos and product names on it for customers such as Parle, delivering the printed paper in jumbo rolls. The Revenue argued that the printing process transformed the paper into a distinct commodity and therefore constituted manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Ce…

M/s Asian Peroxides Ltd., an Export Oriented Unit, claimed exemption under Notification No.8/97‑CE for hydrogen peroxide manufactured in India and cleared to the domestic market. The issue was whether the items used in the manufacturing process were "raw materials" (eligible for exemption) or merely "consumables" (inel…

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…

Servo‑Med Industries bought bulk disposable syringes and needles, sterilised them, packed them in branded pouches and sold them. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice demanding additional excise duty, contending that sterilisation transformed the articles into a new commodity. The Tribunal held that …

The respondent, M/s Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., manufactures tempered and laminated safety glass for automobiles and claimed MODVAT credit on float glass raw material under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue Department issued show‑cause notices alleging that the credit was claimed on defective i…

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. entered into a contract with Bhilai Steel Plant to design, supply, and erect hydraulic mudguns and tap‑hole drilling machines. Components were imported and some were manufactured at its Chennai factory, then shipped to the steel plant where they were assembled on a concrete platform 25 feet above…

The Supreme Court examined whether a drug‑manufacturing loan licencee, Cosme Pharma Laboratories Ltd, which contracts job workers to produce its medicaments, should be treated as a "manufacturer" under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thus liable for excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise had issued notices tr…

The assessee, Dugar Tetenal India Ltd., cleared photographic chemicals under the brand name “Tetenal” claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86‑CE of the Central Excise Act. Investigation revealed that the brand belonged to a German collaborator, not the assessee, and that the assessee had willfully declared the…

The appellant, Geo Tech Foundations & Construction, manufactured PSC girders for a railway bridge and cleared them without paying central excise duty. A show‑cause notice demanding duty, confiscation and penalty was issued on 8 May 1996, well beyond the six‑month limitation period then applicable. The appellant contend…

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd filed two price lists for its compressors, one showing a lower price for sales to alleged bulk buyers. The revenue authorities disallowed the lower price, contending that bulk buyers could not be distinguished from other wholesale buyers and that only one price could be charged for the same class…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., a manufacturer of automobiles liable to excise duty, claimed deductions under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for a large unutilised MODVAT credit of Rs 69.93 crore and for sales tax recoverable amounting to Rs 3.08 crore for AY 1999‑2000. The Assessing Officer, the Commissioner and the ITAT…

Phil Corporation Ltd. processed cashew nuts, peanuts and almonds by dry/oil roasting, salting, seasoning and packed them in small containers, clearing the goods without paying excise duty and claiming classification under Chapter 8 (0801.00) at a nil rate. The Revenue argued that the processed products fall under Chapt…

The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice to Mis Bajaj Tempo Ltd demanding duty on advertisement expenses that the manufacturer initially incurred and later recovered from its dealers, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 1IA(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Author…

Unicorn Industries, a manufacturer in Sikkim, claimed that a 2003 exemption notification under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which exempted basic excise duty and certain additional duties, also covered the National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD), education cess and secondary/higher education cess imposed…

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…

Tata Chemicals sold soda ash in gunny bags and claimed that the cost of these durable, returnable bags should be excluded from the assessable value of the soda ash under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The revenue argued that no valid arrangement obligating buyers to return the bags to the seller ex…

M/S T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. filed a refund claim after the final assessment of excise duty. The Assistant Commissioner rejected it on limitation grounds, but the Commissioner of Central Excise reversed the decision, and the CEGAT affirmed the reversal. The Revenue appealed, arguing that a proviso added in 1999 to sub‑rule (…

Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar, then Collector of Central Excise, ordered confiscation of excisable goods and confirmed duty against Mis. Hari Vishnu Packaging Ltd. but did not impose a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Central Board of Excise directed him to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on the q…

The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy challenged the Ministry of Environment's permission to import hazardous wastes, seeking a total ban, amendment of the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989 to conform with the Basel Convention, and a declaration that the Rules vi…

Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, a manufacturer of hot re‑rolled steel, was initially assigned an annual capacity of 7,683.753 MT using the formula in Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules, but the Commissioner applied Rule 5 to fix the capacity at 11,961.135 MT based on actual production in 1996‑97. After the mill altered its machine…

Pearl Drinks Ltd. claimed eight deductions while computing excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner allowed six deductions and disallowed two; the company appealed and the tribunal, affirmed by the Supreme Court, upheld the disallowance of the two deductions. The Central Board of Excise and Cust…

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…

The Union of India appealed against Hindustan Zinc Ltd. challenging the company's claim of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs used to produce sulphuric acid and other chemicals that were cleared to fertilizer plants at nil duty. The issue was whether Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, which mandates separate accounting…

Kushal Fertilisers Ltd, a manufacturer of MS conduit pipes, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No.202/88 but failed to obtain a licence or file a declaration under Rule 174. The Commissioner issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11A and Rule 209A alleging that the company suppressed the fa…

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 appellant‑Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the assessee, Merino Panel Product Ltd, had undervalued sales of excisable decorative laminates to its sister concerns (Merino Industries Ltd and Merino Services Ltd). The Revenue used Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, read with Section 4(1)(a)…

The Supreme Court was asked to decide the validity of Rule 5 of the 1997 Central Excise Rules, which was challenged on the grounds of being ultra vires of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench, however, diverted attention to a different issue concerning…

The Union of India and other appellants sought to recover central excise dues from SICOM Ltd., which had defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The State Financial Corporation had taken possession of the mortgaged assets and claimed a first charge over them. The appel…

M/s Wimco Ltd., a manufacturer of printed paper board boxes, sold waste/scrap/parings generated during production without filing a classification list under Rule 173B or issuing invoices under Rule 52A. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice and demanded excise duty of Rs 23.20 million with an equal penalty. The CEGAT …

Prabir Banerjee, a Group‑B Superintendent in the Central Excise Department, was transferred from the Bhopal zone to the Nagpur Commissionerate under an office order. He challenged the transfer, arguing that circulars dated 19 Feb 2004 and 9 Mar 2004 prohibited inter‑zonal transfers, making the order void. The Central A…

M/S. Peacock Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic moulded furniture, claimed a refund of excise duty under Section 173L of the Central Excise Act for goods returned by its distributors. The Department, after a market survey, valued the returned goods at Rs.8‑10 per kg, treating them as scrap, which was lower than…

Quick Heal Technologies Ltd. sold antivirus software on CDs together with a license key and free updates to end‑customers. The Revenue argued that the transaction comprised two components – sale of the CD (goods) and provision of updates (service) – and that service tax should be levied on the entire consideration desp…

The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged Mis. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. for cutting and slitting duty‑paid jumbo rolls of tissue paper into smaller rolls, napkins and facial tissues, alleging that this constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracted duty under a different ta…

The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged Carrier Aircon Ltd's classification of its chillers under tariff heading 84.18 (refrigerating or freezing equipment) instead of heading 84.15 (air‑conditioning machines). The Revenue argued that because more than 90% of the chillers were used as integral parts of central ai…

Uttam Steel Ltd exported galvanized steel sheets in May‑June 1999 and was required to claim a rebate of excise duty under Section 118 (then Section 11B) of the Central Excise Act within six months of shipment. The company filed its rebate applications on 28 December 1999, beyond the six‑month limit but within one year.…

The appellants, M/s. Coal Handlers Pvt. Ltd., performed agency services for Ambuja cement companies, supervising coal loading and liaising with railways, but did not handle the clearing, warehousing, or forwarding of the coal. The Revenue claimed that these services fell within the definition of a "clearing and forward…

A Infrastructure Ltd., a manufacturer supplying goods to Government and public sector undertakings, claimed deductions for interest on delayed payments (3‑12 months) and bank/collection charges under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessing authority, appellate authority and the Central Excise, Cus…

Sony India Ltd, a colour‑television manufacturer, cleared packed TVs from its factory without printing the maximum retail price, affixing the price later at its depots and offering free gifts to buyers. The Central Excise authority demanded duty at the 18% ad valorem rate (based on the printed retail price) together wi…

Mentha & Allied Products Ltd manufactured menthol under a licence granted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 31188‑CE, which exempts "bulk drugs" as defined in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. The Central Excise Collector held that the menthol …

Tecumseh Products India Ltd repaired compressors by replacing stators. The stators were fabricated by external job workers and then received by the company, which performed shaping, varnishing and baking before fitting them into compressors. The Central Excise Collector treated these activities as manufacture and levie…

Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd. appealed against the Central Excise Tribunal’s classification of its Johnson’s Prickly Heat Powder and Phipps Processed Talc as cosmetics/toilet preparations under tariff heading 33.04. The Collector (Appeals) had classified them as patent or proprietary medicines under tariff heading 30.03…

U.C. Bhandari, a manufacturer of water‑proof fabrics, appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise, challenging the classification of its products under Tariff Heading 52.07 (cotton fabrics water‑proofed) instead of Heading 59.06 (impregnated, coated fabrics). The Tribunal had held that the fabrics were impregna…

Balaji Enterprises, a manufacturer of aluminium containers, purchased aluminium ingots and processed them into circles and containers. During this process, aluminium scrap was generated. The Central Excise Authority demanded duty on the scrap under Central Excise Tariff Item 27(a)(i) (aluminium in any crude form) at a …

Channy Enterprises operates two hot‑rolled steel mills, each equipped with its own reheating furnace. After installing a second furnace (with a single motor that prevents simultaneous operation), the Commissioner, relying on the 26‑February‑1998 circular, fixed the unit’s Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) by adding t…

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs appealed against several manufacturers, including Mis. Venus Castings (P) Ltd., who had opted to pay excise duty under Rule 96ZO(3) (or 96ZP(3)) of the Central Excise Rules and subsequently claimed the abatement benefit under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act. The Su…

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…

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 appellant, Commissioner of Customs, challenged Andhra Sugars Ltd's claim of Cenvat credit for service tax paid on outward transportation of sugar to customers' premises. The Revenue argued that such transport occurs beyond the "place of removal" defined under the Central Excise Act and therefore cannot be treated a…

T.N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals obtained exemption under Notification No. 116/69 for its drug Darzamol Injection, which contains Metronidazole and Dextrose. The Revenue later alleged that Dextrose, not being a pharmaceutical necessity or therapeutically inert, was suppressed in the classification list, withdrew the exemptio…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against United Spirits Ltd., which manufactures Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and also produces food flavours used in IMFL. The revenue department issued show‑cause notices alleging that royalty received from franchisees for the use of its trademark should be added to the…

Mis. Eswaran and Sons Engineers Ltd manufactured Minimum Oil Circuit Breakers and had been paying excise duty by classifying them under tariff sub‑heading 8535. The Department issued show‑cause notices in 1993‑94 seeking reclassification to sub‑heading 8537 and the Assistant Collector reclassified the goods on 19‑Dec‑1…

The appeal before the Supreme Court concerned the method of calculating the cost of production for excisable products under the Central Excise Act. Two questions were posed: whether excise duty paid on raw material, if modvatted, should be included in the cost of production, and whether the profit earned by a job worke…

The appellant Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Ltd. had claimed CENVAT credit and refunds under notifications issued in 1999‑2002. After the Finance Act, 2003 amended those notifications retrospectively under Section 153, the Assistant Commissioner ordered recovery of Rs 2,20,18,124, demanding payment within 30 days. The a…

Idea Mobile Communication Ltd sold SIM cards to its subscribers and charged both sales tax and service tax on activation. The dispute centered on whether the value of the SIM cards should be taxed as a service under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, or as a sale of goods under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, …

The case concerned M/s Tarpaulin International, which produced "tarpaulin made‑ups" by cutting tarpaulin fabric, stitching the pieces and fixing eye‑lets. The Revenue argued that this process amounted to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the finished product was a distinct, marke…

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs issued a show‑cause notice demanding differential excise duty from M/s Reliance Industries Ltd., alleging that the assessee had undervalued its finished goods by not separately accounting for duty benefits obtained from customers holding advance licences. The demand was ra…

The case concerned two composite textile mills that manufactured cotton yarn in their weaving departments and used it captive in their spinning departments to produce fabric. An exemption notification dated 18 June 1977 exempted such yarn from excise duty, but a later notification dated 15 July 1977 partially withdrew …

The respondent, Vinayaga Body Building Industry Ltd, manufactured motor cabs on duty‑paid chassis with a seating capacity of 12 passengers plus a driver. The chassis were invoiced by the manufacturer under sub‑heading 8706.29, but the Revenue classified the completed cabs under sub‑heading 8702.10, attracting a 1% Nati…

OK Play India Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic water tanks and toys, pulverised LDPE and HDPE granules into moulding powder. The Central Excise Department issued show‑cause notices demanding duty for two periods, alleging that the conversion was a "manufacture" and that the powder was an excisable good. The Supreme Cour…

Sandoz Private Limited, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), sought refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) paid by its Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit for goods supplied to the EOU. The Union of India and other respondents contended that the EOU was ab initio exempt from excise duty under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and…

Nirlex Spares Pvt. Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of steel heads, printed a hexagonal artistic design on its corrugated boxes alongside its own brand names. The tax authorities held that the design was a monogram belonging to its marketing agent, L.M.S. Marketing Co., and therefore denied the exemption under Notifica…

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 …

M.K. Kotecha, a manufacturer of RCC pipes and collars, cleared the goods to lift‑irrigation schemes between April 1990 and June 1992, claiming they were captively consumed and filing a price‑list under Part VI(a) stating that comparable prices were not known. In reality, the appellant used a cost‑plus method and was aw…

Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd manufactured condensing units at its Delhi plant and procured cooling units from local manufacturers. It assembled these components with pipe kits, cords, remote controls and performed quality checks at its Mumbai workshop, thereby creating a complete split air‑conditioner that was sold un…

The Barnagore Jute Factory and other jute manufacturers challenged the levy of a cess on jute yarn and twine under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, arguing that jute yarn was not covered by Heading 23(2) of the First Schedule, that intermediate products could not be taxed, and that the cess could …

The respondents, manufacturers of textile fabrics, were found to have cleared goods without paying excise duty and were served a show‑cause notice on 6 January 1999. They sought relief under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which allowed settlement of tax arrears quantified or notified on or before 31 March 1998, b…

The Supreme Court examined whether manufacturers of chewing tobacco could claim input relief under exemption Notification No.121/94‑CE when they had not complied with the Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessees argued that the intended use of the intermediate product (kimam) was evident fro…

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…

Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit (EOU), was assessed excise duty and penalty for removing partially oriented yarn to the domestic tariff area (DTA) without permission of the Development Commissioner. The Central Excise Commissioner ordered duty under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central …

The case concerned the classification of Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil (AHAHO) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – whether it should be taxed as a medicament (Chapter 30) or as a cosmetic/toilet preparation (Chapter 33). The Revenue, relying on the 2012 amendment of the tariff schedule, sought a re‑examination o…

The Union of India (Revenue) issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11‑A of the Central Excise Act alleging clandestine removal of goods and incorrect valuation of Indalco Industries’ aluminium products. The High Court dismissed the part of the notice dealing with clandestine removal but quashed the valuation portion…

Accurate Meters Ltd supplied electric meters to various State Electricity Boards under two distinct contracts – one for the supply of meters and another for their transportation and insurance. The contracts stipulated that freight and insurance charges would be levied at average rates, not on actual cost, and the meter…

Moriroku UT India (P) Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic automobile components, received tools, dies and moulds free of cost from its customer Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. to produce components. The Uttar Pradesh Tax Department levied trade tax under Section 3 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the amortisation cost of thes…

O.K. Play (India) Ltd., a toy manufacturer, classified activity desks, chairs, play tables, swings, slides, fun fliers, rockers and a play pool as "toys" under Central Excise Tariff Heading 95.03 and cleared them without duty. The Central Excise Department, after approving the classification list, issued show‑cause not…

The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot issued a show‑cause notice alleging that two adjoining units (Unit 1 and Unit 2) processed grey cotton fabrics into finished cotton fabrics using power, thereby denying them exemption under Notification No. 5/1998‑CE. The units appealed, and the CESTAT h…

MIS. STP Ltd., a manufacturer of coal‑tar products, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification 121/62‑CE which exempts ‘tar’ falling under Tariff Item 11(5). The Central Excise authority argued that the various pitches produced by the company were not ‘tar’ within that clause and therefore not exempt. The Tr…

Whirlpool of India Ltd, a refrigerator manufacturer, challenged Notification No. 9 of 2000 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which required the maximum retail price (MRP) to be printed on the package of goods. The company argued that a refrigerator is not a “packaged commodity” within the meaning of th…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, sought to enforce a refund order dated 06‑06‑1989 in favour of M/s Dalmiacement (Bharat) Ltd. The refund had not been paid, leading to contempt proceedings and a High Court order directing the Assistant Commissioner to examine the claim under the amended Section 11B, which…

Eagle Flask Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of plastic insulated wares and vacuum flasks, claimed exemption from central excise duty and licensing control under Notification 11/88 (NT) CE dated 15‑04‑1988 and Notification 53/88, which exempted certain plastic items. The company failed to file the declaration and underta…

Saraswati Sugar Mills, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses, fabricated iron‑and‑steel structures in its own factory to support newly installed sugar‑processing machinery and claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 67/95‑CE, which exempts "capital goods" defined in Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules…

Larsen & Tubro Ltd entered into a bridge‑construction contract for the Konkan Railway and manufactured pre‑stressed concrete (PSC) girders without registering under the Central Excise Act. A first show‑cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 11IA demanding excise duty for March 1993‑December 1994 was later withdrawn wi…

The assessees, M/s Steel Strips Ltd., manufactured cold‑rolled steel strips from hot‑rolled strips, which under Central Excise Tariff Item 26AA attracted a higher duty (Rs 650/MT) than hot‑rolled strips (Rs 450/MT). The excise authorities contended that the cold‑rolled strips were the result of a distinct manufacturing…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against orders of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal that had held that notional interest on interest‑free advances taken by manufacturers from buyers could not be added to the assessable value of excisable goods. The revenue argued that such advances am…

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…

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. manufactured parts of locomotive wagons and rolling stock at its Growth Shop in Adityapur and transferred them to its main plant in Jamshedpur for repair and maintenance of transport equipment used within the factory. The assessee claimed exemption under Notification No. 281/86, which exemp…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s dismissal of his appeal challenging the exemption granted to M/s Hira Cement, a small‑scale industry (SSI), under Notification No.1193‑CE dated 28‑Feb‑1993. The issue was whether Hira Cement’s use of the brand nam…

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…

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…

M/S Sonebhadra Fuels, which manufactures coal briquettes (coal tikli), sought exemption/rebate of sales tax on the basis that the briquettes were the same commodity as coal, which had already been taxed. The Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Sales Tax Tribunal rejected the claim, holding the briquettes t…

The assessee, M/s. Uni Products India Ltd., manufactured textile car mats and cleared them under heading 570390.90, attracting an 8% excise duty, whereas the revenue argued they should fall under heading 8708.99.00 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles, attracting a 16% duty. The Commissioner issued three show‑cau…

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice on 18 January 1999 demanding differential excise duty and penalties from India Thermit Corporation Ltd. (ITCL) and its subsidiary Asiatic Thermics Ltd. (ATL) for alleged mis‑classification, suppression of facts and undervaluation of thermit portions and dry …

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against Mis. Aka Y Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., which claimed deductions from assessable value for special packing, turnover tax, octroi, and bought‑out items while the assessable value was based on the selling price to a related person under proviso (iii) of Sec. 4(1)(a) of the Cent…

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the Tribunal’s order allowing Mis Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd. to deduct seven categories of expenditure from the assessable value of its instant hair‑colour product for the period 1988‑1993. The Tribunal had remanded the question of whether Akay Cosmetics and its sole dis…

Mis Mil India Ltd, a manufacturer of plant and equipment for soaps and detergents, entered into composite contracts with Godrej Soaps Ltd and Galaxy Surfactants Ltd to supply both its own equipment and duty‑paid bought‑out items such as motor‑pumps and heat exchangers directly to the sites. The Central Excise Departmen…

UltraTech Cement Ltd claimed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on outward transportation of cement from its factory to customers' premises during Jan‑Jun 2010. The Revenue argued that such transport service, being beyond the "place of removal", is not an "input service" under Rule 2(l)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, …

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., a subsidiary of Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., was granted a sugar incentive rebate for the 1973‑74 season. The Excise authorities later issued a show‑cause notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, demanding recovery of the rebate, alleging it was erroneously allowed. While the…