Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 25(1) – Exemption from payment of duty – Withdrawal of amended customs notification – Judicial scrutiny can also extend to consideration of legality, and bona fides of the decision – Wisdom or unwisdom, and the soundness of reasons, or their sufficiency, cannot be proper subject matters of judicial review –

May 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA ANOTHERS — Appellant Vs. A. B. P. PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 125 and 127B – Whether a settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under Section 123 of the Act? – Divergent view regarding the issue – Matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

May 9, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YAMAL MANOJBHAI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Constitution Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 125 and 127B – Whether a settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under Section 123 of the Act? – Divergent view regarding the issue – Matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YAMAL MANOJBHAI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Mere broad-basing of the entries in Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Act 1985, by itself, could not have been the justification for an attempt at re-classification of the product – anything which is prepared for being used on the hair and carries the name “Hair Oil”, would lose its character as medicament if otherwise it has been prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses – Moreover, rewording and regrouping of different entries in medicaments are hardly of any impact on the character of the product in question.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD — Appellant Vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A – HELD We do not accept the contention that recovery of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of Section 35-E, if the timelimit provided in Section 11-A has expired. To so read the provisions, would be to render Section 35-E virtually ineffective, which would be impermissible

Mar 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI – 1 — Appellant Vs. M/S. MORARJEE GOKULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 4(4)(c) – Valuation of excisable goods – Related person – There is no finding that the price of the goods was lower than what was the price of those goods, in the market – In view of the foregoing discussion, it has to be concluded that the revenue’s decision in rejecting the value at which the goods were sold, by treating the assessee as a related person, was erroneous.

Mar 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

Customs & Excise

The attempt by the appellants to have these appeals argued of only academic interest and would not serve any practical purpose because there is no current lis where the principles and circumstances prior may be applied. – Impose costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellants for unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings before SCOI. This sum is to be donated to any benevolent organisation that helps children with cancer.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD (NOW KNOWN AS GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED) THR. MANAGER LEGAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS —…

Customs & Excise

Wikipedia – note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution – These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowdsourced and user generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information as has been noted by this court on previous occasions also – Courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources.

Jan 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (NOW HP INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.) — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA — Respondent (…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw