Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

Customs & Excise

Tribunal has not looked into the merits of the appeals at all on the facetious ground that the show cause notice did not contain any basis to doubt the classification of the goods and that while issuing the notice, the adjudicating authority had not examined the classification based on the report of the laboratory – Findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the record and cannot therefore be sustained – The goods were leviable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 – The goods were chargeable to anti-dumping duty; and respondent was liable to pay interest under Section 28AB and penalty under Section 112(a) read with Section 118(a) of the Customs Act 1962.

Sep 26, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE — Appellant Vs. M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli,…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28(4) – Recovery proceedings – Power of recovery on “the proper officer” – Where one officer has exercised his powers of assessment, the power to order re-assessment must also be exercised by the same officer or his successor and not by another officer of another department though he is designated to be an officer of the same rank

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V.…

Customs & Excise

Goods were previously classified (before 1993) under Subheading 8536.90, but a revised classification list, classifying them under subheading 8608, submitted by the appellant, was approved by the competent Authority on 27.08.1993 – After such specific approval of the classification list, it is not proper on the part of the Authorities to invoke Note 2(f) of Section XVII.

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S. Bopanna…

Customs & Excise

The precise time at which the notification was uploaded on the e-Gazette was 20:46:58 hours – Since the importers, who had imported goods from Pakistan, had presented their bills of entry and completed the process of “self assessment” before the notification enhancing the rate of duty to 200 per cent was issued and uploaded, the enhanced rate of duty was not attracted – Importers were liable to pay the duty applicable at the time when the bills of entry for home consumption were filed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962

Sep 25, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S G S CHATHA RICE MILLS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28 – Levy of customs duty – Sale of cut flowers – The burden of proving to the contrary rested upon the appellant, which the appellant failed to discharge by failing to establish that the imported inputs were not used in the production of the cut flowers sold in DTA – In view thereof, the authorities below have rightly invoked Section 28 of the 1962 Act and allied provisions – CESTAT has rightly upheld the levy of customs duty – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 1, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. L. R. BROTHERS INDO FLORA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 4(1)(a) – Value of excisable goods – Principles applicable in common (both pre and post amendment) – Adjudicating Authority may treat any amount received either in cash or otherwise, over and above the invoice value, as the value of excisable goods even in cases falling under Section 4(1)(a) (after the amendment), as the definition of “transaction value” under Section 4(3)(d) means the price actually paid or payable.

Aug 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT — Appellant Vs. M/S. CERA BOARDS AND DOORS, KANNUR KERALA ETC. ETC. —…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Sections 17 and 38A – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rule 25 – First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Chapters 57 and 87 – Tariff entry – Whether “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof” Held:- Subject-goods come under the chapter-heading 570390.90, There is no necessity to import the “common parlance” test or any other similar device of construction for identifying the position of these goods against the relevant tariff entries – Appeal dismissed

May 2, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III — Appellant Vs. M/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 9(1)(e) – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods Valuation Rules, 1988 – Rules 4, 9(1)(e) and 12 – Import consignments – Custom valuation – Provisions of Rule 9(1)(e) cannot be automatically applied to every import which has surface features of a turnkey contract.

Apr 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA — Appellant Vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw