Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Customs & Excise

Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 858 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AUDI AUTOMOBILES AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, INDORE ( Before : J. B. Pardiwala and K.…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) — Manufacture — Two-fold test — For an activity to be considered “manufacture,” it must result in new, distinct goods with a new identity, character, or use (transformation test), and these resultant goods must be marketable — Both tests must be satisfied. –Section 35L(2) — Amendment retrospectivity — Amendment clarifying that taxability or excisability of goods is included in “determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty” is clarificatory and retrospective in nature.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 582 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ALUPRO BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-II ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

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…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw