Category: 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.

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…

“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

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 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.

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. )…

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.

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. )…

Under sub-section (1) of Section 75A of the Customs Act, where duty drawback is not paid within a period of three months from the date of filing of claim, the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback -Since there was belated refund of the duty drawback to the respondent, it was entitled to interest at the rate which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time being fifteen percent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. B. T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay…

HELD the enactment of section 142A of the Customs Act does confer or create a first charge on the dues ‘payable’ under the Customs Act, notwithstanding provisions under any Central Act, but not in cases covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and the Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and the Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 201

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) — Appellant Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND…

You missed