Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Central excise

LIPI BOILERS LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

The Court held that the product resulting from the contract (the steam generating plant assembled and commissioned at site) is an immovable property and therefore not 'goods' excisable under the Act; consequently the transaction value (contract price) could not be used to impose excise on the boiler by including the value of duty-paid bought out items delivered directly to site; further, the extended five-year limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked as revenue failed to prove wilful suppression with intent to evade duty, rendering the show cause notice invalid; acc…

Source excerpt

  • Valuation of excisable goods
  • Excisability / movability
  • Immovability and erection/installation
  • Extended period of limitation (section 11a)
  • Show cause notice
  • Cenvat / recovery under section 11d
Read case analysis
Central excise

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

Applying the two-pronged test (transformation and marketability) the Court found that placing the imported Genset into a steel container and fitting it with integral components produced a distinct product (the Power Pack) with its own character, identity and the core functional utility of portability; the additional components are 'parts' necessary for the Power Pack to function in the container; the Power Pack is marketable; therefore the process amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and excise duty is leviable.

Source excerpt

  • Manufacture under section 2(f) of the central excise act, 1944
  • Transformation test
  • Marketability test
  • Parts versus accessories
  • Classification under central excise tariff/customs tariff
Read case analysis
Customs law

M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The CBEC Circular No.35/2010-Cus. dated 17.09.2010 is clarificatory/declaratory of prior Notifications and therefore operates retrospectively; accordingly the appellant is entitled to the 1% AIR customs duty drawback on export of Soyabean Meal from 2008 as applicable, and the High Court's conclusion that the Circular was only prospective was set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Retrospective effect
  • Clarificatory circular
  • All industry rate (air) duty drawback
  • Merchant exporter
  • Cenvat
  • Doctrine of fairness
Read case analysis
Central excise

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

The Court held that reclassification of Benzene and Toluene could not be sustained where it was based on chemical test reports that were not furnished to the appellant in contravention of Rule 56 and principles of natural justice; and that assessments for January and February 1993 could not be treated as provisional because the mandatory requirements of Rule 9B (a proper officer's written direction or the assessee's written request and execution of a bond) were not complied with; accordingly the CESTAT and lower orders upholding differential duty and provisionality were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Tariff classification
  • Test reports and disclosure
  • Provisional assessment
  • Rule 56 central excise rules, 1944
  • Rule 9b central excise rules, 1944
  • Rule 173b central excise rules, 1944
Read case analysis
Central excise

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR -II versus M/S MIRAJ PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.

Because the Commissioner accepted that the respondent sold HDPE bags each containing 100 poly packs to distributors, and the 1977 Rules do not require declaration of retail price on such wholesale packages (and HDPE bags fall under the definition of 'wholesale package' in Rule 2(x)(iii)), Section 4A(1) of the Central Excise Act did not apply to the goods in the show cause notices; accordingly the Tribunal's conclusion that Section 4A(1) was not applicable was upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Valuation of excisable goods
  • Retail sale price
  • Section 4a
  • Group package
  • Wholesale package
  • Packaged commodity rules
Read case analysis
Central excise

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPUR versus JINDAL DRUGS LTD.

Because Note 3 to Chapter 18, after the 01.03.2008 amendment, contemplates three independent processes and labelling or re-labelling alone falls within those processes, the activity of affixing labels at the Taloja unit amounted to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) and the CESTAT order allowing the respondent's claim to cenvat credit and rebate was correct; there was no suppression warranting extended limitation or penalty.

Source excerpt

  • Manufacture
  • Re-labelling
  • Cenvat credit
  • Rebate
  • Statutory interpretation
Read case analysis
Customs law

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

On a conjoint reading of the Exim Policy 1992-1997, the Central Excise Act, the Customs Act and the 1995 Drawback Rules, supplies by the respondent to the World Bank funded project were 'deemed exports' and entitled to duty drawback; because the DGFT's refund was belated, the respondent was entitled to interest on the delayed refund under Customs Act Sections 75A and 27A at the rate fixed by the Central Government (15% as per notification No.32/1995); the DGFT's circulars were clarificatory and retrospective and the grant could not be treated as a mere concession to deny interest.

Source excerpt

  • Duty drawback
  • Deemed export
  • Interest on delayed refund
  • Policy interpretation
  • Retrospective/clarificatory circulars
Read case analysis
Central excise

COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. AHMEDABAD versus M/S URMIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. AND OTHERS

Where there is deliberate misstatement or wilful suppression by an assessee—for example, changing classification to a tariff entry that attracts a lower MRP-based assessable value with intent to evade higher duty—the proviso to Section 11A(1) can be invoked to extend limitation; declarations under Rule 6 of the CTPM Rules are not insulated from inquiry and adjudication, and the Competent Authority can determine and rectify classification in the process of determining machine capacity and corresponding duty; generally the burden to establish an alternate classification lies on the Revenue, but de…

Source excerpt

  • Classification of goods
  • Limitation and extended period under section 11a
  • Valuation and mrp-based assessment (section 4a)
  • Misstatement/suppression
  • Ctpm rules rule 6 declarations
  • Interpretation of fiscal entries
Read case analysis
Central excise

COMMISSSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD versus ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

The Supreme Court held that Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil (AHAHO) is classifiable as a 'medicament' under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (covered by homeopathic medicament entries) because it passes the twin tests (common parlance and ingredients): it contains recognized homeopathic medicinal ingredients, is manufactured under drug licences and marketed as a homeopathic medicine, and the 2012 amendments to tariff entries did not change the product's character or justify re-classification to Chapter 33.

Source excerpt

  • Tariff classification of goods
  • Medicament versus cosmetic
  • Common parlance test
  • Ingredients test
  • Effect of tariff amendment on classification
Read case analysis
Central excise

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI – I versus M/S MORARJEE GOKULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO. LTD.

Where the order-in-original granting a refund is set aside in proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act and those proceedings were initiated within the time prescribed under Section 35E, recovery can be effected pursuant to the Section 35E proceedings and no separate notice under Section 11A is required; Sections 35E and 11A govern different fields and time-limits and Section 35E cannot be rendered ineffective by insisting on a separate Section 11A notice

Source excerpt

  • Refund
  • Review under section 35e
  • Notice under section 11a
  • Limitation
  • Unjust enrichment
  • Recovery of erroneous refund
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.