Supreme Court of India Judgements

46880 Judgements hosted as on 02/10/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

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…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 15(1)(C) and 130E – After a thorough review of the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties, the Court decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for re-adjudication –This Court directed the Commissioner to work out remedies for the cases of goods under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act within a specified timeframe – The Court sustained the demand for customs duty and interest on certain cases while upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for unauthorized removal of imported goods – The impugned order of the CESTAT was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in part.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. BISCO LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

You missed

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 139, 118 — Dishonour of cheque — Presumptions — Scope — Once execution/signature admitted, presumption arises that cheque was for consideration and discharge of legally enforceable debt — Burden initially on accused to rebut by raising probable defence — Mere plea of complainant’s financial incapacity, without documentary or independent evidence, not sufficient — Failure to reply to statutory notice, an adverse inference against accused — Defence that blank signed cheque given for obtaining bank loan, held unbelievable.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Scope of interference — Courts are prohibited from rewriting contracts and should not interfere with arbitral awards unless grounds under Section 34 are met, such as violation of public policy or patent illegality. Interference is justified when an award shocks the conscience or is contrary to basic notions of justice. The scope of appeal under Section 37 is narrower than Section 34.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Conversion of conviction — Where evidence shows that though accused had knowledge that injuries would cause death, there is no material to prove intention to kill, conviction under Section 302 IPC is not tenable and should be converted to Section 304 Part I IPC.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374(2) — Appeals against conviction — High Court’s power to acquit — High Court, after considering evidence and finding patent infirmities and insufficiency of evidence in the prosecution case, rightly acquitted the accused giving them the benefit of doubt.- Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 65-B — Electronic records — Call detail records — Non-production of certificate under Section 65-B along with call detail records renders them inadmissible — Handwritten notes of call details without examining the scribe are not proved according to law.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw