Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Customs & Excise

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 (…

Customs & Excise

Excise duty – Determination of value of goods – is deemed to be the ‘normal price’ of the goods that are ‘ordinarily sold’ in the course of business, and where the price is the ‘sole consideration’ for the transaction. It is only when this cannot be gleaned from the set of transactions available on record that we resort to Section 4(1)(b)

Dec 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, ROHTAK — Appellant Vs. MERINO PANEL PRODUCT LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B.…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11B – Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Rule 18 – Rebate of duty – While making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall have to be applied and applicable

Dec 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANSERA ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, BENGALURU — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Customs & Excise

HELD a chiller machine is attempting to masquerade as a heat pump, to gain concessional tariff benefits – Conclusion therefore is inevitable that the MVAC machine must not be categorized as a Heat Pump – falls in Sub-heading 8418.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in the category of refrigerating equipment.

Oct 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S THERMAX LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-1 — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 173­L – HELD returned goods may be treated as a raw material and therefore the “value” of the raw material can be considered for the purpose of “value” while determining the refund under Section 173­L cannot be accepted – Denial of the refund is in consonance of Section 173­L (v) of the Central Excise Act – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 11, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S PEACOCK INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Customs & Excise

HELD one transaction of sale of software and once it is accepted that the software put in the CD is ‘goods’, then there cannot be any separate service element in the transaction. We are saying so because even otherwise the user is put in possession and full control of the software. It amounts to ‘deemed sale’ which would not attract service tax.

Aug 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI — Appellant Vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…

Customs & Excise

HELD Anardana’ is a dried product of local ‘daru’ or wild pomegranate – well-settled principle that words in a taxing statute must be construed in consonance with their commonly accepted meaning in the trade and their popular meaning – Policy which specifically states – ‘import of pomegranate seeds will be free’

Jul 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AMRITSAR (PUNJAB) — Appellant Vs. M/S D.L. STEELS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela…

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