Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

228 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–228.

TUNGABHADRAINDUS. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 2885 May 2000Dismissed

Tungabhadra Indus Ltd., a manufacturer of hydrogenated oil, had accumulated money credit under two separate Central Excise notifications – one issued in 1987 and later rescinded, and another issued in 1989. The company claimed it could utilise the credits from both notifications simultaneously for payment of excise dut

M/S. LOHIA SHEET PRODUCTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2008 INSC 3175 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed

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 INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

1997 INSC 2325 March 1997Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. obtained raw naphtha at a concessional rate under Notification No. 27/89‑CE for manufacturing chemicals listed in the schedule. The raw naphtha was thermally cracked, producing olefinic rich gas, pyrolysis fuel oil and pyrolysis gasoline; the latter was further processed to yi

M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) AND ORS.

2023 INSC 4874 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether pan masala and gutkha, products containing betel nut and sometimes tobacco, could be taxed under various state sales‑tax statutes despite being listed as exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court analysed the classification of these products under the Central Excise Tari

B.P.L. PHARMACEUTICALS LTDversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

1995 INSC 3384 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. manufactured a Selenium Sulfide Lotion (branded Selsun) containing 2.5% selenium sulfide, used for treating seborrhoeic dermatitis and tinea versicolor. The product was certified as a drug by the FDA, labelled with warnings, and marketed through chemists on prescription. While earlier excise

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, T.N.versusM/S VINAYAGA BODY BUILDING INDUSTRY LTD.

2008 INSC 3004 March 2008Case Allowed

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

SANDEN VIKAS (INDIA) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2003 INSC 1444 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Sanden Vikas (India) Ltd., a manufacturer of car air‑conditioning kits, claimed exemption under Notification No.166/86‑CE by classifying its kits under Item 5 of Heading 8415. The Assistant Collector treated the kits as air‑conditioners under Item 3, leading to a demand for duty. After the amendment on 20 March 1990 in

NIRLEX SPARES PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2008 INSC 44 January 2008Case Allowed

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

M/S. MATHANIA FABRICSversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

2008 INSC 104 January 2008Disposed off

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. KOTECHAversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2005 INSC 54 January 2005Dismissed

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.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2007 INSC 12133 December 2007Dismissed

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

CAMLIN LIMITEDversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2008 INSC 10103 September 2008Disposed off

Camlin Limited manufactures various inks, including marker inks and other inks used in pens. The Central Excise Tariff classifies "writing inks" under CSH 3215.10 (nil duty) and "other inks" under CSH 3215.90 (16% duty). The Tribunal, relying on the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN), placed marker inks in the lat

UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

2002 INSC 3623 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Unichem Laboratories Ltd., a bulk drug manufacturer, filed classification lists on 3 March 1986 before Notification No. 234/86 was issued. After the notification, it obtained a certificate from the Drugs Controller and claimed exemption from excise duty, but the Assistant Collector denied the claim, insisting that exem

M/S. O.K. PLAY (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III, GURGAON

2005 INSC 613 February 2005Dismissed

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

EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

2004 INSC 4932 September 2004Dismissed

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

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusM/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD.

2024 INSC 5722 August 2024

The State of Gujarat appealed against the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal and the High Court, which had allowed M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd. to exclude Value Added Tax (VAT) and the value of purchases on which no tax credit was claimed from its taxable turnover of purchases under Section 11(3)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added

SARASWATI SUGAR MILLSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-ILL

2011 INSC 5342 August 2011Dismissed

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

M/S. VADILAL CHEMICALS LTD.versusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 3252 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. set up a small‑scale unit in Medak to produce liquor ammonia and to refill anhydrous ammonia into cylinders. It obtained a final eligibility certificate under the 1993 Government Order granting a five‑year sales‑tax holiday. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (DCCT) later issued pre

THE TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD., BIHARversusTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA

2005 INSC 1132 March 2005Disposed off

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IVversusM/S. SANDAN VIKAS (I) LTD.

2015 INSC 4421 July 2015Disposed off

The appeal concerned the classification of car air‑conditioning kits and automotive gas compressors under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period 1 August 1991 to 28 February 1993. The revenue argued that the kits, whether sold with or without compressors, should be taxed under serial No.3 (or serial No.5) o

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IIIversusM/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD.

2020 INSC 3811 May 2020Dismissed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUMversusM/S. AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD., HUMBLI

2005 INSC 1771 April 2005Dismissed

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

M/S. DABUR (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR

2005 INSC 1781 April 2005Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court considered two products of Dabur Ltd., ‘Janam Ghunti’ and ‘Lal Tail’, for classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal had remitted the classification of ‘Janam Ghunti’ to the original authority, noting that its nature as an aqueous distillate, solution or extraction required

M/S. MIL INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

2007 INSC 2381 March 2007Case Partly allowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusM/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD.

2005 INSC 1111 March 2005Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the classification of grey cotton canvas cloth, belting and duck manufactured by Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. The issue was whether these goods should be taxed under tariff headings 52.02/54.08 (non‑made‑up goods) or under heading 59.09/59.11 (made‑up goods for industrial u

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