Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 01/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

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…

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

Constitution

Allotment of Land — Irregularity — Public Interest Litigation — Demolition vs. Regularisation — The court must balance the wrong committed with the current reality and socio-economic consequences — Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex, involving significant investment, employment, and tax revenue, may not serve public interest if financial restitution is possible.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw
Service

All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 — Rule 16(2A) — Voluntary Retirement — Acceptance by Central Government — Central Government has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a Voluntary Retirement (VRS) notice — It is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation and must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances — This power is not unconstrained and is guided by DoPT Guidelines, requiring consideration of pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings that could lead to a major penalty — The Central Government can accept a VRS request even if a major penalty is possible, but this requires a conscious and well-informed decision — Appeals allowed, order of Central Government rejecting VRS set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw
Environment

Environment Law — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s directions for States to file compliance affidavits — Court expresses displeasure at Rajasthan’s lacklustre response and apathy in implementing directions affecting National Chambal Sanctuary — Rajasthan directed to ensure personal presence of senior officers with compliance reports — Court also directs Madhya Pradesh to address issue of unregistered vehicles.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 — Temporary status casual labourer — Entitlement to pensionary benefits — Held, entitled even in the absence of formal regularisation, provided eligibility criteria under Rule 10(1-B) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, are fulfilled.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw