Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A (1) – Differential duty – Incorrectly determination of the assessable value of finished goods – Determination is required to be made on the basis of judgment and in a bonafide manner – An assessee can be accused for suppressing only such facts which it was otherwise required to be disclosed under the law.

Jul 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari…

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…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw