Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 29/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 11A(1) proviso — Extended period of limitation — Invocation of extended period of limitation for recovery of excise duty on Naphtha — Requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty — Revenue failed to establish any deliberate act of suppression or evasion by the appellant, a public sector undertaking — Any duty evaded would be revenue neutral due to subsidy mechanism — Extended period of limitation held not applicable.

Mar 26, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 285 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX (LTU) ( Before : Manoj Misra and…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) (prior to amendment by Act 18 of 2017) — Manufacture — Exemption Notification No.5/98-CE, Entry No.106 — Eligibility for exemption — Manufacture includes series of processes; entire chain of activities must be considered — Where multiple units undertake distinct processes which are ‘integrally connected’ and form a ‘continuous chain’ to convert raw material (grey fabrics) into final excisable product (cotton fabrics), the entire activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ — Distinct ownership or separate bills between the units is irrelevant if the processes are interconnected and essential for producing the final product — Use of power in any intermediate, integrally connected process denies the exemption under Entry 106 (cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam). (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT Vs. NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) — Definition of “Manufacture” — Test for Manufacture — Transformation Test and Marketability Test — Process of containerising Gensets by adding components like radiator, ventilation fan, etc., held to amount to “manufacture” as it resulted in a distinct product with a new identity and character.

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1130 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V.Viswanathan, JJ. )…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 — Sections 28, 28AB and 125 — When goods are confiscated under Section 125 of the Act, 1962, and later redeemed by paying a fine, the owner of the goods is liable to pay customs duty under Section 28 of the Act — This duty obligation arises only after the option to pay the fine is exercised, and it is a precondition for redemption — The court also held that the interest on delayed payment of duty under Section 28AB of the Act is also applicable in such cases — The decision settles the confusion regarding the applicability of Section 28 and Section 28AB in confiscation proceedings under Section 125 of the Act.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 547 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Customs & Excise

“Supreme Court Expands Definition of ‘Manufacture’: Labeling Alone Qualifies for Cenvat Credit and Rebate” Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35L(1)(b) – qualification as ‘manufacture’ under the Act – The primary issue is whether the labeling activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ as per Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, thereby making respondent eligible for cenvat credit and rebate on exported goods – The revenue (petitioner) argued that the additional labeling done by Respondent did not amount to manufacture and hence, they were not entitled to the cenvat credit and rebate claims – Respondent contended that the labeling activity is deemed as manufacture according to Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, justifying their claims for cenvat credit and rebate – The Supreme Court affirmed the CESTAT’s order, dismissing the revenue’s appeal and upholding Jindal Drugs Ltd.’s entitlement to cenvat credit and rebate on the duty paid – The Court reasoned that the amendment to Note 3, which replaced ‘and’ with ‘or’, broadened the scope of activities considered as manufacture, including labeling – The Court interpreted the definition of ‘manufacture’ in the Central Excise Act and the amended Note 3 to Chapter 18, concluding that labeling alone suffices as manufacture – The Supreme Court concluded that the labeling activity carried out by respondent amounts to manufacture, entitling them to cenvat credit and rebate, with no order as to costs.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 354 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPUR — Appellant Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

Customs & Excise

“Central Excise Dispute: Fresh Start Ordered! Court Remands Case for Tribunal to Reassess Impact of Missing Letter on Show Cause Notices” Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35C (2) – Orders of Appellate Tribunal – The appellant, M/S Madura Coats is involved in a legal dispute with the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the clearance of goods without payment of duty – The case involves multiple orders and appeals, with the primary contention being the non-furnishing of a crucial letter dated 20.01.2001 – The main issue is whether the non-furnishing of the letter dated 20.01.2001 has caused prejudice to the appellant’s ability to respond to the show cause notices effectively – The appellant contends that the final order by the tribunal, which directed the respondent to furnish the letter dated 20.01.2001, is binding and its non-compliance should result in the appeals being allowed – The respondent argues that the letter dated 20.01.2001 is the appellant’s own document and its absence does not prejudice the appellant’s case – They also assert that the appellant has been delaying the adjudication process – The court affirmed the High Court’s decision to remand the matter back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication of the show cause notices, subject to the appellant demonstrating how the non-furnishing of the letter has caused prejudice – The court reasoned that the letter dated 20.01.2001 was not relied upon adversely against the appellant and that the appellant should have retained a copy of their own document – The court found that the non-furnishing of the letter did not violate principles of natural justice as it was not used to draw adverse inferences against the appellant – The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the matter was remanded back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication, with the appellant’s contentions kept open

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 336 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…

You missed

Land Acquisition National Highways Authority Act

National Highways Act, 1956 — Amendments and compensation provisions — Section 3-J introduced in 1997 removed applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) provisions for solatium and interest — Overturned by various High Courts, including reading down Sections 3-G and 3-J to grant solatium and interest — Subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and its amended provisions extended to NH Act — Court clarified that landowners acquired lands under NH Act between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to solatium and interest — Review Petition filed by NHAI arguing financial burden was underestimated rejected, but clarification on delayed claims issued.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 102 — Applicability — Provision contemplates a situation where a judgment debtor transfers property after institution of suit to a person who then obstructs execution — Not applicable where respondents derived title from independent registered sale deeds, not from the judgment debtor.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw
Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Re-determination of compensation — Second application for re-determination based on High Court award maintainable even after accepting compensation based on Reference Court award — Principle of merger means appellate court’s award supersedes earlier award, entitling landowners to benefit from higher compensation — Object of Section 28-A is to ensure equality in compensation among similarly placed landowners.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw
Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 86 — Tariff determination and Generation Based Incentive (GBI) — State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has exclusive power to determine tariff — Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) introduced GBI to incentivise renewable energy generation — GBI is intended to be over and above the tariff fixed by SERC — SERC must consider GBI while determining tariff, but not necessarily deduct it — SERC’s power to determine tariff includes considering incentives — Parliament’s allocation of funds for GBI does not prevent SERC from considering it in tariff — SERC must exercise its power harmoniously with other stakeholders to achieve policy objectives.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw