Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

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…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Sections 5A and 11B – Determination of refund of excise duty – Subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were impugned before the respective High Courts are clarificatory in nature and are issued in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they do not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies and therefore cannot be said to be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel

Apr 23, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S V.V.F LIMITED AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Arun…

Customs & Excise

In view of the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, the custom duty is to be calculated on the sale price and not on the duty as is payable on the date of deemed expiration of permitted period of warehouse. Such Circular of the Board is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the custom duty has to be paid on the basis of sale proceeds realised

Feb 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CONTAINER TERMINAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta And Dinesh…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A – Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded – Scheme of Section 11A does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie determination or hearing.

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran,…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 27 and 128 – Right to file refund claim- The claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or selfassessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings and it would not be within the ken of Section 27 to set aside the order of selfassessment and reassess the duty for making refund

Sep 30, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ITC LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA IV — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 18 and 130E – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Section 16 – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rule, 1988 – Rules 9 and 9(1)(b) – Import activity – The value of the software and the concerned services were therefore rightly included and taken as part of the importation. Appeal dismissed.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran,…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw