Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Customs & Excise

Customs & Excise

Customs Act 1962 – Sections 132, 135(1)(a)(ii) read with 135A – Once a common judgment is set aside for one appeal, it cannot be upheld for another appeal. There cannot be a severance of the judgment particularly when it arises in a criminal case, where the rights of the accused are as important as the rights of a victim.

Nov 4, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V.…

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,…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw